asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now take steps to reorganise his Building Regulations Advisory Committee, in order to give the structural engineering profession stronger representation upon it.

The present Committee of 15 members includes three structural engineers. To add further structural engineers would upset the balance of the Committee.

But in view of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee's performance on the fifth amendment, does not my right hon. Friend think that this Committee should be reorganised? Would he consider reappointing members at rather more frequent intervals than is now done?

I would not subscribe to my hon. Friend's criticism of the work of the Committee. It has worked very quickly, I think, and very effectively under great difficulties. I will bear in mind her suggestion that the membership should be reorganised more frequently, but I am sure that she will realise that I have to strike a balance between the various professional interests involved, and it would be wrong for me to tilt the Committee in one direction.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will have discussions with the Institution of Structural Engineers about the re-structuring of the Building Regulations.

I am always glad to discuss with professional institutions and other bodies matters concerning the Building Regulations.

But does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there is a dichotomy between the Building Regulations, which are mandatory, and the advice given by the Institution through the codes of practice committees which lay down good practice? Does he not think that this should be clarified? Would he look at this again?

We shall shortly be having a further meeting with the Institution of Structural Engineers and I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says. I greatly appreciate the interest she takes in this matter.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the amount of housing subsidy given in the last year for which figures are available to the London Borough of Brent.

About £519,000 in 1969–70, Sir.

Can my hon. Friend tell us the figures for 1964 and 1965?

The figure in 1964 was £119,000 and in 1965–66, £225,000. In effect, this is an increase of about £400,000 over the past five years.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the last set of figures published by the Association of Municipal Treasurers, the Exchequer subsidy represented 13 per cent. of the housing revenue, as against 39 per cent. provided by the rate subsidy? Does he not consider that that is too disproportionate?

I would, of course, have to check those figures to see whether or not they are correct. The question of rate subsidy is a matter not for the Exchequer but for the local authorities concerned. The hon. Gentleman has—as he often does when discussing these matters; the same can be said of many of his hon. Friends—omitted one important fact, which is that the biggest proportion of the so-called rate subsidy is, in fact, expenditure on urban renewal, salaries on capital account, land holdings, building purchases and like expenditure ahead of the actual building of estates.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the amount of housing subsidy given in the last year for which figures are available to the London Borough of Ealing.

About £561,000 in 1969–70, Sir.

Would my hon. Friend agree that, despite the generosity of the Government in their efforts to try to solve the nation's housing problem, boroughs like the London Borough of Ealing appear to be completely devoid of any compassion or sense of urgency in trying to rehouse people in the borough who are desperately in need of homes? Is he with me in condemning the London Borough of Ealing on its housing record?

I have been to see representatives of the London Borough of Ealing. I regret to say that, to date, despite lengthy discussions, probings and urgings on the borough to increase its building programme, a matter of considerable importance to people living in disgraceful housing conditions, the authority has so far not attempted to meet the wishes of the Ministry.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree, from the figures published by the A.M.T.I., that the capital value of the housing stock of this borough is less than the debt charge, and that that in itself is a discouragement to local authorities and is a direct result of Government interest policy?

The hon. Gentleman may seek to rationalise the situation in boroughs with this kind of problem—boroughs which are not facing up sufficiently to the problem—in that rather gobbledygook fashion. The plain fact is that there is now more Government financial assistance available to housing priority areas such as this, and other boroughs in Inner London, than ever before. There is no reason at all why this borough should not increase its building activities.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the estimated rate support grant paid to the County Borough of Barrow-in-Furness for 1969–70; and what was the corresponding figure for 1964–65.

The latest estimate of rate support grants payable to the County Borough of Barrow-in-Furness for 1969–70 is £2,365,907. The corresponding grants for 1964–65 totalled £1,476,952.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, without this rate support grant increase, the local authority would have had to increase its rates by 9s. 3d. in the £to maintain the present level of local government services provided in the county borough?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is, I believe, perfectly correct, and it is worth pointing out also that the effect of the domestic element in the case of Barrow is to keep the domestic rate poundage in the present financial year at the same level as for 1969–70.

To save the time of the House, would the right hon. Gentleman recommend to his hon. Friends the fact that all of this could have been put in the Labour candidate's election address on Thursday?

It will be.

It is not for me to rule on a matter of that kind. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not say anything improper about my hon. Friend's wish to elicit details about the great degree of generosity which the Government have shown in this matter.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the amount of housing subsidy given in the last year for which figures are available to the London Borough of Havering.

About £334,000 in 1969–70, Sir.

In spite of the large sums of money involved, would my hon. Friend agree that the London Borough of Havering last year completed only about a dozen houses? Has he had an opportunity to send for the leaders of the council to get them to complete more houses next year?

Havering is one of those authorities which we have added to the list of authorities we are visiting for detailed discussions about their housing situation. We are very concerned not just with the position as it has been stated by my hon. Friend, but in relation to the prospects in the borough; planning for future housing programmes. I have invited representatives from the borough to meet me to discuss all aspects of their housing situation with a view to increasing their efforts.

Do not the housing statistics for 1969 show that Havering completed 529 houses, and not a dozen or so as mentioned by the hon. Gentleman? Why did not the Minister correct him?

The hon. Gentleman should be more concerned, as we are in this House and in the Department, to get the housing programmes of this and other boroughs, which are in grave need of houses, increased instead of participating in efforts to reduce house building under the leadership of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), who is not here today.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the estimated rate support grant paid to the County Borough of Bradford for 1969–70; and what was the corresponding figures for 1964–65.

The latest estimate of rate support grant payable to the County Borough of Bradford for 1969–70 is £11,234,606. The corresponding grants for 1964–65 totalled £6,484,388.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Can he say how that would work out in terms of per head of population or in terms of domestic rateable value?

I think the best help that I can give my hon. Friend is to tell him that without that rate support grant the general rate last year would have been higher by 22s. 3d. in the £, and that the domestic element which the Government are paying has enabled the domestic rate in the coming financial year to be reduced by 3d. in the £

Would the right hon. Gentleman drop some of this electioneering nonsense and give the comparative figure after allowing for S.E.T. and increased rates of interest?

If the hon. Gentleman will table a Question to me on that subject, I will gladly give him the answer. If he is really interested in electioneering nonsense, he should have watched television last night.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many rent rebate schemes have been introduced and improved by local authorities in England and Wales since he recommended rent rebate schemes to all authorities in Circular 46/67 issued on 29th June, 1967.

In the two-year period from March, 1967, to March, 1969, the number of housing authorities in England and Wales operating rent rebate schemes increased from about 46 per cent. to about 60 per cent. The number of council tenants covered by these schemes increased from about 64 per cent. to about 80 per cent. Since the circular was issued in June, 1967, many of the schemes then in operation have been improved.

Would my hon. Friend object if I included those figures in my election address as an example of what a Labour Government endeavour to do for the least well off?

My hon. Friend has made a very perceptive observation.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what guidance he has given to local authorities about the operation of the new provisions in the Countryside Act, 1968, enabling any mistakes on footpath maps to be corrected on review.

Advice about the kind of evidence to which local authorities can properly have regard under these provisions will be included in a circular to be issued shortly to local authorities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that answer will be welcomed in the country? Is he also aware that many sober lovers of the countryside like myself are increasingly concerned at the loss of country footpaths to the general public?

I am sure that the whole House welcomes sober lovers. I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion, because I believe it to be true that at present some local authorities are interpreting too widely their powers to enable mistakes to be rectified. I hope that the guidance which I shall shortly be issuing will prevent this from happening in future.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proportion of planning appeals are currently being decided by inspectors.

Slightly more than 42 per cent., Sir.

Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to transfer other forms of appeal to his inspectors on further classifications?

Yes, I am considering this. The progress made in delegating to inspectors is satisfactory. We originally estimated that it would be 46 per cent. It is at the moment 42 per cent., but it is being successful in shortening the time between receipt of notice of appeal and giving a decision. I am considering extending this power of delegation so that about 60 per cent. of appeals will be covered by it.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the estimated rate support grant paid to the County Borough of Southampton for 1969–70; and what was the corresponding figure for 1964–65.

The latest estimate of rate support grant payable to the County Borough of Southampton for 1969–70 is £5,889,856. The corresponding grants for 1964–65 totalled £3,183,698.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the amount of housing subsidy given in the last year for which figures are available to the London Borough of Waltham Forest.

About £669,000 in 1969–70, Sir.

Do not those figures show quite clearly that the savage attacks being made by the Tory-dominated London Borough of Waltham Forest Council on local government services in that borough, consistently blamed on the Government, are totally unjustified? Is he aware of the very serious housing problem which will exist in years to come unless something definite is done about the planning of future housing development in Waltham Forest?

Yes, Sir. It has been the increasing practice in recent times for Conservative spokesmen in many boroughs—not all of them, but in many—to blame difficulties on the problem of heavy costs. It should be stated that more assistance is being given than has ever been given before. In the borough referred to there has been an increase of two-thirds. The figure in 1964 was £225,000.

Would the hon. Gentleman also admit, however, that despite the increase in housing subsidy, the charge to the rates as a result of the increase in the rate of interest has meant that the rate charge has more than doubled in the period for which he quoted figures?

The rate charge has not doubled. The hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. The main problem facing certain authorities—not all, but certain of them—is the problem of refinancing existing debt on past schemes. This does not affect the cost, or the subsidy towards the cost, of completed schemes. It is at a notional level of 4 per cent. interest charges.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) what is his latest estimate of the number of houses that will be started and the number that will he completed in Great Britain during 1970;

It is too early in the year to make a reliable forecast. In the first two months of 1970, 37,536 dwellings were started and 49,963 completed in Great Britain. The decisions we have taken in recent weeks—notably the extra£50 million for local authority lending and the reduction in Bank Rate—will stimulate the rate of house building.

Does the Minister recall any previous occasion when a Government were falling short, mainly in the private sector, of their housing target. by 130,000 a year and at the same time there were 1,000 million bricks lying idle and 125,000 building operatives unemployed?

If the hon. Member is interested in research into past history, I should tell him that in 1963, the last full year of Conservative Government, there were 27,000 starts and 28,000 completions, which is much less than there have been in the present period.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the savage cut-back in my borough from 1,900 starts to only 24 has been matched in other boroughs? Is it not deplorable if local borough councils try to cut back Labour's housing programme to make General Election capital?

What my hon. Friend has said is perfectly true. It is of some interest that, in spite of the difficulties, a number of local authorities are managing to maintain a very high level of house building, whereas others, like that to which my hon. Friend has referred, are falling short very seriously.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is too early to make a forecast for 1970, whereas only four years ago to the day, in 1966, he was able to forecast 500,000 houses being built in 1970? Does he not agree that the figures he has given show the biggest decline in completions since the war?

That may be due to the fact that at the time to which the hon. Member refers I was Minister for Overseas Development. I have no recollection of having made a prophecy of that kind. Indeed, I do not remember any other Minister of Housing giving a reliable forecast so early in the year.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals he now has regarding the disposal of the housing stock of the Commission for the New Towns.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the timetable for the transfer of new town housing assets to the appropriate local authority.

My right hon. Friend is considering this matter and hopes to make a statement in the summer.

Will the Minister recognise that his policy of disposal of houses to both tenants and local authorities at market value would impose unacceptable costs on local authorities if, in accordance with Government legislation, houses are handed over to them?

No, Sir. As far as I know, the sale of houses at market value has been accepted on both sides of the House, and it would raise serious questions of principle if we attempted to depart from that.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of disappointment in the new towns that more speedy progress has not been made towards handing over new town assets to the local authorities, and that the local authorities are extremely concerned that housing assets should be handed over at existing loan debt?

I am well aware that there is a desire for a speedy determination of the matter on the part of local authorities in new town areas. I hope that my announcement of a time when we hope to make a statement will go some way towards satisfying them that the matter is having speedy attention at our end.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will allow the costs of obtaining planning consent to be taken into account in calculating Land Commission levy.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no power to make such an allowance under the Land Commission Act.

When other costs are allowable in these circumstances, why is it that the very costs which are essential to betterment should not be allowed? Should not the Minister think about legislation?

The reason they are not allowed is that when the House passed the legislation it decided not to include them.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further information he has now obtained regarding the cost to public funds of the proposed Thames flood barrier.

As the hon. Member is aware the Greater London Council is conducting an investigation in depth into all the circumstances surrounding the Thames flood barrier problem. Five scientific and research bodies have been assisting the investigation. Of these the most crucial work is by the Hydraulic Research Station and it is expected that by July this work will have reached a stage to enable a choice to be made of the type of structure and the site. This will also enable a closer estimate of the cost to public funds to be made.

But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that when the time for choices comes the ultimate cost of an operation of that kind should be better met by the beneficiaries, just as the ultimate cost of, say, the Forth or Tay road bridges is met by the beneficiaries and not carried by the generality of taxpayers?

It would be very unwise to agree to any such proposition until we have had the result of the detailed research.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will call a conference of housing authorities in London to discuss the housing programme in the Metropolis.

I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion for an all-London conference of authorities carefully in mind.

Will my right hon. Friend do this quickly, and do something about the shocking dereliction of housing responsibilities by boroughs like Bexley, Croydon and Merton, and by the G.L.C., whose guilty accomplices sit on the benches opposite and who are neglecting their housing responsibilities to London?

We are very well aware of the seriousness of the situation, and are having discussions with individual authorities. It is better to get those through before we consider a conference of the London housing authorities. My hon. Friend may be encouraged to know that no fewer than seven London boroughs, including some of the poorest, achieved programmes of over 1,000 dwellings in 1969. The others should seek to emulate them.

Does the Minister propose to take any steps to lower the interest rates imposed by the present Government on local authorities, which have had such a hindering effect on the building programme?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967. He seems to overlook the fact that high interest rates are not peculiar to this country but are a world phenomenon.

Jenkins asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the relative contribution in terms of housing building and local authorities, private builders and housing associations.

In the five years ended 31st December, 1969, 41·4 per cent. of dwellings completed in England were built by or on behalf of public authorities—local authorities, new town authorities and Government Departments—1·5 per cent. by housing associations and 57·1 per cent. by private builders.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people have a much exaggerated idea of the contribution of housing associations to the general house building effort, and that Shelter has pointed out that its actual contribution to housing is minute? What steps does he propose to take to enable the housing associations to make a larger contribution?

The matter falls into two parts, First, there is the position with regard to co-ownership housing associations, those which operate under the aegis of the Housing Corporation. My right hon. Friend has announced an increase of £10 million in the Corporation's capital expenditure for 1970, which together with the building societies' contribution will allow an increase of about £20 million during the coming year. There is also the housing association side whereby local authorities financially sponsor schemes. This is now running at £17 million a year, and is expected to rise in the coming year.

Will the Minister confirm that, in contrast to the pretty miserable assistance given by the Government to housing associations, the Greater London Council is to give £75 million over three years, and that, contrary to what was suggested by his hon. Friend, this could produce 15,000 new and converted dwellings, to which the G.L.C. would have rights to over 9,000?

The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The housing association movement in the purchase of old properties for conversion relies on the assistance forthcoming under the 1967 Act, whereby help was given for the purchase of property. The G.L.C., like other authorities, is very largely reimbursed from Government sources on this score, and also by way of the grant aid for conversions. The number of dwellings likely to be converted in Greater London in the coming year is estimated to be about 3,000. The total number requiring conversion and modernisation is nearly 250,000.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses Wandsworth Borough Council built in 1969; and what measures he is taking to encourage a better performance in 1970.

In 1969 Wandsworth Council placed 1,565 houses into tender, started 1,073 houses and completed 991 houses. It has been urged to do even better, but as with some other inner London boroughs, this will be difficult without more help from the G.L.C. in providing housing land in Outer London to ease decanting problems from clearance areas.

Is it not the case that, now that my right hon. Friend has wisely prevented the G.L.C. from lumbering Wandsworth Borough Council with a lot of run-down housing estates, it will be better able to concentrate its attention on new housing?

Certainly we shall wish to see Wandsworth and many other boroughs building more houses. One of the most important factors influencing the position in Inner London is the unavailability of housing land for municipal development to ease the pressure on areas requiring demolition in inner London.

Is the Minister aware that more than three times more houses were completed by the Wandsworth Borough Council in 1969, the first full year of Conservative control, than were completed in 1967, the last full year of Labour control?

The hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting my answers. I have criticised not Wandsworth but the G.L.C. for not making land available in Outer London by purchase to assist Wands-worth and other boroughs.

Yes or no?

I will answer the specific point. Completions achieved in the first full year of Conservative rule, as in any other borough, depended on starts being made by the Conservatives' predecessors.

On a point or order. Throughout all the questions on housing concerning the London boroughs there were no supplementary questions, with one exception, put by Conservative hon. Members. The unwholesome and embarrassing burden has been left to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). Is that fair on him, Mr. Speaker?

That is not a point of order, and it is a waste of Question Time.

On a point of order——

Order. Points of order at Question Time waste valuable time.

Further to that point of order, which was not a point of order, may I now rise on a point of order? It will be within the recollection of this House that the last Speaker said that anyone who raised a bogus point of order was cheating. What sanction have you, Mr. Speaker? Can you debar that human gargoyle from asking any questions?

Order. I would have to bar both hon Members who have just spoken.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now state the outcome of his consideration of measures to restore the house building programme.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made in the House on 18th March. Also I issued a circular yesterday to local authorities explaining what in my view is the purpose of local authority lending; namely to meet housing needs or to further public policies, which would not otherwise be provided for. It also sets out the method of allocating quotas among local authorities for the current financial year.

While appreciating that action, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will look again at two emergency measures—the use of the existing compulsory powers against local authorities which are deliberately cutting down their house building programme, and, secondly, permitting banks to make priority loans to house builders, which they are not at present allowed to do?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions. As to the compulsory powers, this is rather a slow process and I am anxious to make much more rapid progress than would be possible through this means. It is necessary that local housing authorities should have much greater determination than they have now. There are authorities like Birmingham, Sheffield and Newham which are managing to build, and there seems to be no reason why other local authorities should not do just as well. On the second question, this is a matter of which the Chancellor will no doubt take note, but it is probably true that at the moment the difficulty facing the builders is not so much in getting credit as in the high interest rates they have to pay if they get it.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman concentrate so much on local authority housing when it is a fact that there is a severe shortfall in the private sector? Although he said that he would mention these things to the Chancellor, does he not have some shots in his locker to get private enterprise going?

The hon. Gentleman must not have heard the answer I gave to my hon. Friend. He must have been absent from the House on 18th March too. If he will look at HANSARD for that day he will find the very positive measures which the Government announced to help the private sector.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will estimate the approximate proportion of home-owners who changed their residence during 1969, and the average cost of the legal fees, including conveyancing, which they incurred.

No information is yet available about 1969. In 1968 about 6 per cent. of home-owners changed their residence. Cost of legal fees depends on the house price, whether or not title is registered, and the nature of the mortgage. So a reliable average cost cannot be given. But a representative example for a mortgagee who sold one house and bought another would be about £140, assuming registered title, building society mortgage, and an average price for a house bought through a building society.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that the Prices and Incomes Board has twice shown that the average level of conveyancing fees is far too high? Is it not time, particularly in the light of the recent "Which?" report which showed that certain charges were being imposed which were not even justified, for the Government to take urgent action to relieve this burden on the home-owner?

I certainly sympathise with the objectives which my hon. Friend is seeking to achieve. As he will be aware, this matter is being considered through the offices of the Lord Chancellor and I hope that there will be some action soon.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will estimate the approximate proportion of tenants in privately and publicly rented accommodation, respectively, who change their residence in 1969; and what proposals he has to facilitate such movements.

No figures are available for 1969, but in 1968 it is estimated that about one-sixth of the households in privately rented accommodation moved house and about one-sixteenth of those in publicly rented accommodation. The large addition to the national housing stock achieved under the present Administration, and the continued development of the new and expanded towns, is already facilitating greater freedom of choice which will increase mobility, as shortages continue to be eradicated.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that many council tenants are unable to move about perhaps as freely as they would wish because of the present council procedures? Could he make some statement about the extent to which his investigations into the use of the computer for facilitating transfers and exchanges have progressed?

The actual organisation of exchanges is not something which we in the Ministry undertake. What we have undertaken to do when we meet the local authority associations to discuss the report in a little while from now is to discuss the possibility of a national exchange bureau facility together with the many other recommendations in the Cullingworth Report.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Greater London, and I believe other parts of the country, it is practically impossible for a local authority tenant to move from one borough into another? Will he consider introducing legislation placing a duty on local authorities to maintain a register of tenants wishing to transfer to other areas so that it would be possible for them to inspect this at a local government office if they wished to move?

There is no specific statutory duty on local authorities to maintain such a register. In London there is a statutory requirement to maintain a general register for London made up of information received from the boroughs. It seems that there is no reason why the kind of suggestion which the hon. Gentleman has made, which is in sympathy with remarks from this side of the House, should not be proceeded with by the G.L.C.

asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if he will make a statement about the timing and implementation of the Government's proposals to reform local government finance.

The Government's proposals will be set out in the Green Paper which was foreshadowed in the White Paper on the Reform of Local Government in England (Cmnd. 4276). I hope to publish the Green Paper in good time to allow for consultation and public discussion, and then to synchronise the implementation of its proposals with the changes in the structure of local government.

Will that be published before or after the General Election, as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor promised this just before the 1966 election?

As to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, this no doubt will depend on the date of the General Election, which I cannot forecast to the House today. As to the second part, owing to the unique importance which this Government attach to local government, regional planning, pollution and other matters, I have no predecessor, and never had one.

asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning what action he has taken to develop co-operation between regional planning councils and local planning authorities to ensure harmonisation of aims and policies.

The planning councils and the local planning authorities in their regions are already in frequent touch with each other. And I want to develop cooperation between them still further. I have already discussed this with the planning council chairmen, and I propose shortly to discuss it with the local authority associations concerned. Moreover, I have, on recent regional visits, held joint meetings with representatives of both the planning councils and the groupings of local planning authorities. I intend to have similar discussions in other regions in the coming months.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the real test in Lancashire in this matter will come in the years ahead if the new central Lancashire town is built? Will he undertake to keep the House informed of attempts to improve this consultation?

Yes, Sir, gladly.

asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning what recent representations have been made to him from North-East Essex about the Government's proposals over the Maud Report on Local Government; and what replies he has sent.

A number of authorities in this part of Essex sent comments last autumn on the structure of local government proposed in the Redcliffe-Maud Report. These were taken fully into account before we reached the conclusions set out in the recent White Paper. A general invitation to comment on areas and boundaries was issued just before Easter, and Essex authorities will no doubt be amongst those who will be letting us have their further views.

Is the Secretary of State aware of how much authorities in this area wish to have Colchester as their centre and not Ipswich? Will he state his views about this?

I am aware of the feelings in this part of Essex. No doubt this and other matters can be discussed in the forthcoming boundary consultations.

asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if he will now introduce legislation to provide for the appointment of Parliamentary Commissioners to investigate complaints of maladministration in the sphere of local government along the lines recommended in Command Paper No. 4276.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 29th January. Now that the White Paper on Local Government Reorganisation has been published, the next step is to work out the details of the scheme with the local authority associations. Consultations for this purpose will start shortly. —[Vol. 794, c. 414.]

Does not my right hon. Friend think that some form of ombudsman in local government is becoming ever more necessary, particularly as so many local authorities have fallen under the control of the Conservative Party? Will he consider implementation of this matter as one of urgency?

I agree that the need is becoming more urgent, no doubt among other reasons for the reasons my hon. Friend has given. We propose to push on with consultations as rapidly as we can.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the blatant electioneering that has gone on during the whole of this Question Time is a complete waste of time—that it has wasted the time of those who prepared the Answers and those who have had to listen? Will he improve the standard and be more objective?

Perhaps that is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, rather than for me. All I can say is that the standards of questions and answers, particularly of answers, has been consistently higher than the standard of the party political broadcast given last night.