asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will consider introducing an effective interest rate of 2½per cent. on local authority borrowing for new housing limited to authorities which have the gravest slum clearance and housing need problems.

In present circumstances my right hon. Friend cannot contemplate even more generous housing subsidies. The basic subsidy for new building is now running at several times the level under the previous administration and amounting to about £3 per week for each dwelling completed.

While recognising the great contribution that this new subsidy system has made, under which Sheffield, for example, last year received more than £2 million in the housing revenue account, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that there is a case for extending the admirable precedent set by the educational priority areas and the urban programme of giving special aid to those great industrial cities which have inherited serious problems from former Tory and Liberal administrations?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that to some degree we have already started along this road because in 1966, for the first time, we established a list of housing priority areas where the greatest possible effort will be made, if need be restraining other authorities in their programmes, to get the resources in the right places. How we might in future more effectively assist the social priority areas is a matter that we are still studying.

As the hon. Gentleman has just said that he cannot do anything about this in present circumstances, will he tell us what circumstances would enable him to do something about it? In view of the fact that at the last General Election the Labour Party promised 3 per cent. mortgages, will the Government partly redeem that promise by doing something for the slum dwellers by getting the borrowing rate down?

With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman is confusing two issues. On slum clearance, this Government have increased the rate by about 25 per cent. since the last Government left office. On assistance to local authorities, we have under the 1967 Housing Subsidies Act, introduced an effective interest rate level of 4 per cent. for public authority housing. As for the future, we have a major housing finance review under way in the Department.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what consultation he has had with the local authority associations about the alteration of the cost yardstick limits.

Following discussions with representatives of the local authorities, the cost yardstick limits have been increased on average by a little over 5 per cent. for tenders accepted on or after 15th April.

Does the Minister appreciate that we welcome this increase in the cost yardstick? Does he realise how much this has been due to the Government's taxation policy, particularly S.E.T.? Why has this been so long delayed? Does he not appreciate that this has been holding up the local house building programme?

We have had arguments across the House about S.E.T. in the past and I have noted the hon. Gentleman's views. We could not have had discussions about revising the cost yardstick earlier. A great deal of firm information has to be collected before a decision is taken. I have agreed with the local authority associations to further talks with them this year to review the progress made between now and then, but that does not necessarily imply an automatic increase later this year or early next year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman still receiving representations from local authorities that the cost yardstick procedures are causing delays in their getting on with their programmes?

I did some time ago. I am not aware of any complaints being made recently, but if the hon. Gentleman has any cases in mind, I will look at them. This was largely a phenomenon of the early days of the cost yardstick. Most authorities now know the proper procedure and find that, if anything, it speeds up the procedure for their applications.

But is my right hon. Friend not aware that many Conservative- controlled authorities, including Liverpool, are using every possible excuse not to build houses or to look after the municipal houses they already have? Would he consider not persuasion or help or encouragement but at least a kick in the pants to some local authorities?

That is a very tempting proposition, but I am not sure whether my general relations with local government would be eased if I took my hon. Friend's advice. I am sure he realises that last year I went to Liverpool and had lengthy talks with the housing department about the cost yardstick. I sanctioned a special increase in the cost yardstick in respect of that authority.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he takes to satisfy himself that the cost of repair and maintenance work carried out by local authority direct-labour departments is reasonably competitive with contractors' prices.

It is for local authorities to satisfy themselves on these matters, having regard to the nature of the work, the availability of suitable private contractors, and other factors.

Would it not be helpful to efficiency and economy, however, if the Minister recommended to local authorities that they might put out a representative section of maintenance and repair work to contractors?

It might be useful in the case of direct labour to take prices by competitive tender. We accept that, but there are factors which suggest that, in many fields of activity, direct labour is not only more efficient but produces better quality.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Liverpool, where certain direct-labour work has been turned over to private enterprise contractors, the quality of the painting and other maintenance work has deteriorated rapidly? Is it not clear that we need the direct-labour departments to ensure that people get both good quality and a reasonable cost?

I have no personal experience of Liverpool, but I know that, in Birmingham, there are more complaints about the quality of work on this sort of operation than almost anything else affecting tenants.

Mr. Rossi, Question No. 5.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the last year or so—[HON. MEMBERS "Order."]—

Order. Mr. Rossi, Question No. 5.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what recent representations have been made to him about the effect of the credit squeeze on the housebuilding programme; and what reply he has sent.

Representations have recently been made to me on behalf of the Federation of Master Builders and in reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech, and to the measures already announced in my statement in the House on 18th March.

Does the Minister think that those measures are sufficient? If he is really interested in helping house builders to get on with the job, does he not think they should be given even greater help than has been given so far?

The hon. Member should be a little careful about suggesting that I do not want local authorities to get on with the job. I do, very much. That is one reason that I made my proposals in my statement in the House on 18th March. As it is now only the first week of May, it is a little early to condemn proposals made as recently as the third week in March.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that representations on this aspect of the housing problem and many others were made to him as long ago as 11th December, 1969, in a Report by a Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee? Does he also recall that, although this request has been made, we have not yet had a reply from his Department to those recommendations? Will he see that we get it forthwith?

My hon. Friend will know that the Report of the Committee is engraved on my heart. I am not sure what the position is about the reply which is being prepared to the suggestions made, but I will look into her question and see how quickly I can give her an answer which will be wholly satisfactory.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government which local authorities and Government-aided housing associations are now sponsoring save-as-you-rent schemes for their tenants; and whether he will consult local authority and building society associations about this way of encouraging home ownership.

We are already examining the possibility of save-as-you-rent schemes as a way to help average wage-earners to become owner-occupiers. So far as I am aware, only the London Borough of Newham and the Family Housing Association sponsor such schemes for their tenants; but I will gladly consider any information my hon. Friend will send me on this.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer affords one further proof, if proof were needed, that the Labour Government do more for owner-occupiers than any Tory Government have ever done? Would he note that the recent adoption of the save-as-you-rent scheme by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), whose absence today we regret, is a further example of blinding revelation of unoriginal thought on the Tory benches?

The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has apologised to us for his absence: he is ill, and I am sure that we all regret that. Our action in trying in many ways to stimulate home ownership for those who can afford it is well-known. It is true that there is nothing original about this proposition.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) in how many housing authorities the rate of interest paid on loans for house-building is now in excess of 4 per cent.;

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what recent representations he has received from local authorities as to the cost of borrowing for their housing programmes.

I do not have the precise interest rates paid by individual authorities. A number of authorities have made representations to my right hon. Friend about the effect on their loan pool rates of financing old house-building debt at higher current rates of interest and of the representative rate of interest being fixed on the basis of the previous year's borrowing. This arrangement may, however, reduce this year's effective borrowing rate for new housing.

Are the higher interest rates over 4 per cent. suffered mostly by those authorities with the worse housing problems?

The hon. Gentleman is making a mistake which seems to be common on the other side of the House. The effective borrowing rate for any local authority building houses is 4 per cent. on completion of the dwellings.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the 4 per cent. loan to councils is the biggest boon for housing that this country has ever known? However, could he back-date it to the date of commencement of the building rather than completion, as this would make a considerable difference and prevent the excuses made by the Conservative Party that they are having to pay more than 4 per cent.?

As my hon. Friend knows, this point has been put by him and one or two other hon. Members to my right hon. Friend a number of times recently. My right hon. Friend has considered it, but it is not felt that this is possible. I welcome my hon. Friend's point in underlining what I have just said. I hope that it will be accepted clearly on the other side of the House that this is the position—there is an effective 4 per cent. borrowing rate. Indeed, for some local authorities, for example, Birmingham, one of the major housing authorities in the country, this year the effective borrowing rate will be even less than 4 per cent.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that to suggest that the local authorities are getting a subsidy of anything above 4 per cent. interest is misleading, because there is an ever-widening gap between the representative rate and the actual rate and that some authorities today are having to borrow at 6 and 7 per cent.?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is misleading the House and himself. He should not pay too much attention to the farrago of mistakes which his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) published in The Times only last week in connection with this subject. The effective rate of interest is 4 per cent. The only gap in time is between one year and the immediately preceding year. As I have said, if interest rates vary in some cases, it can produce a lower rate; I have given one example this year.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is satisfied that the amount of money available to the voluntary housing movement is adequate to meet the programmes which they require to undertake; and if he will make a statement.

The output of new dwellings by housing associations has increased and is likely to go on increasing. Starts in 1969 were 18 per cent. higher than in 1968. Housing associations are also playing an increasing role in the improvement and conversion of older houses, and are benefiting from the increased provisions made in the Housing Act, 1969.

Would not the Minister agree that the voluntary housing movement has a tremendously valuable part to play in the housing of this country and that it needs even greater help than it has received from the Government? Would he be prepared to offer that help?

I think that the voluntary housing movement would be the first to admit that it has received more positive and generous help from this Government than from our predecessors. I am glad that the hon. Member referred to the importance of the movement. The important thing is that the houses it builds should be in addition to those supplied by local authorities, not instead of them.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Housing Corporation would be able to do even more if it could have a pool of borrowing from building societies instead of having to get one building society to link up with each housing association scheme?

We are examining the suggestion my hon. Friend has made. He will welcome the fact that in March we made available an additional £10 million to the Housing Corporation which should enable it to meet half the cost of new dwellings instead of simply a third.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many municipal dwellings for elderly people were built from 1964 to 1969.

Between 1964 and 1969 local and new town authorities in England and Wales built 224,000 one-bedroom dwellings, suitable for elderly people.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of all the economic problems we have had to face, those are very remarkable figures? Now that he has given the figures for 1964 to 1969, can he give the figures for 1959 to 1964?

Yes, Sir. Over the five-year period from 1960 to 1964 the total was only 140,000. From 1965 onwards it was 191,000. That is an increase of over 50,000 in that period and an increase of rather more than one-third.

What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that when these homes for elderly people are built they will be let at rents which elderly people can afford?

They are, of course, entitled to the subsidy and other financial help which the Government have given. If my hon. Friend has examples in mind where he thinks more could be done, I will certainly look at the possibility of helping him.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action is being taken by his Department to encourage housing provision for the chronically sick and disabled.

Under the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, increased subsidy is payable where local authorities incur extra costs in providing specially designed housing for the chronically sick and disabled. My right hon. Friend is considering what formal advice can be circulated in the light of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill; but we have already made clear that we wish local authorities to search out the various housing needs of their areas more carefully and meet them by greater building activity and action on establishing improvement areas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer will be greatly welcomed by the disabled? Can he speculate about how effective these provisions will be if Conservative councils persist in cutting down house-building programmes?

Obviously it will be a matter of great distress if Conservative councils insist on cutting down house-building programmes.

It is a matter of great distress that they do so. It is even more distressing if this affects the special needs of handicapped people. This is something which I assure my hon. Friends the Government will keep under review.

May I assure the Minister of State that Conservatives are just as much concerned about the disabled as is the Labour Party?

I quite agree, but those authorities which are not building houses are not showing concern for anyone.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his latest estimate of the price of an average new house.

A provisional estimate of the average price of new private dwellings mortgaged with building societies in the first quarter of this year is £4,960.

Does not this confirm the opinion of the Building Societies Association that the average price of a house has increased by nearly 50 per cent. since 1964 and that the rate of increase is accelerating? Does not this mean that houses are now getting beyond the reach of the average wage-earner?

No, Sir. The rate of increase has been about 40 per cent. over the past five years. The rate of increase over the previous five years was 41 per cent.

What proportion of this increase is due to higher standards of houses which are being built?

I cannot attribute a proportion concerning the private sector, but, taking as a guide-line the estimated increase in cost of public authority housing, it has risen by 8 per cent. due to the adoption of mandatory Parker-Morris standards. In so far as private building reaches somewhat in that direction, if not as far, one must attribute increase in costs to a proportion attributable to higher standards.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now publish an advance timetable on the transfer of housing assets for local authorities in new towns so that they may make the appropriate organisational arrangements and to recruit staff.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 7th April.—[Vol. 799, c. 225.]

Will not my hon. Friend reconsider his earlier decision and not delay the transfer of assets from new town corporations to the council and so avoid the natural suspicions, uncertainties and anxieties which will arise among staff affected by the change? Will he try to give an answer before the Whitsun Recess?

I was not quite sure what issue my hon. Friend was asking me to reconsider. We have undertaken to give this statement to the House during the summer. I could not say that it will be available before Whitsun, but we are anxious to make it available at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he is taking to introduce economy into the design and to reduce the high cost of public swimming pools.

In conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science it has been arranged for the Technical Unit for Sport to undertake a development project on the design of a swimming pool for Newquay Urban District Council. I am confident that this project will provide valuable information and will act as a guide to local authorities on what can be achieved for a limited sum of money.

While I welcome this initiative, would my hon. Friend agree that if it transpired that a substantial saving can be made on design for something so complicated as a swimming pool it might also be used for other kinds of sporting amenity?

Indeed. That is why we established the Technical Unit for Sport. It is doing a study on the minimum size of sports halls and sports pavilions which most voluntary bodies would put on to a sports ground. We are anxious about design and cost.

As the present design is so old-fashioned and not encouraging to swimmers, either young or old, will the Minister consult the Council for the Promotion of Education in Swimming, who are experts in this matter and can give him some proper advice?

We should be delighted to receive advice from any source, not least from my hon. and learned Friend who has championed this cause over many years. We are anxious to build more swimming pools, but at an economic price which the community can afford.

Has any research been done on cheaper heating of swimming pools?

This ties up with the research being done at Newquay.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many slums were demolished from 1964 to 1969.

385,270 houses in England were demolished or closed as a result of slum clearance action in the period 1964–69.

Are not these again an example of how this Government really care about the whole question of housing? Can my right hon. Friend give the figures for 1959 to 1964? Can he also say what encouragement is being given to local authorities to speed up slum clearance programmes?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The average for 1960 to 1963 in England was 58,000 a year. From 1964 to 1969 the average was 64,000. My hon. Friend will no doubt know that I have written to all local authorities asking them to let me know what are their plans for the next five years. For 1970–1973 the average should be 82,000 if local authorities keep to their programmes. I think my hon. Friend will remember that in the Housing Act passed last year we improved the provisions for owner-occupiers in slum clearance areas and also the disbursement of well-maintained payments.

Instead of indulging in self-satisfaction, is it not time the Minister took account of the fact that there are still about 5 million people living in condemned housing in this country, and that if the Government had lived up to their housing promises 1 million of them would now be rehoused?

It is not self-satisfaction but simply dissatisfaction with what hon. Gentlemen opposite were able to achieve in their period in Government. The fact that slum clearance was running at so low a rate during that time was a disgrace of those years. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present in any of our debates on the Housing Act, 1969, but he will realise that one of the main reasons for introducing that legislation was to deal with slum clearance problems.

Does my right lion. Friend agree that the latest figures could be much better if he did not have to write to corporations like Sunderland asking them to increase the number of houses to be built for slum clearance?

Yes, Sir. I am afraid that there are many local authorities in that category.

Is the right hon. Gentleman's forecast to be described as a promise or a pledge? Does it have the approval of the Prime Minister?

That is a question I cannot answer, because my forecast is based on returns from Conservative local authorities.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will estimate the amount of money now required for local authority mortgages to have equivalent value of £179 million in 1964, taking into account increased costs.

About £250 million, Sir, as compared with about £155 million allocated for 1970. Building society lending this year is expected to reach £1,700 million which is about £650 million more than they lent in 1964.

Does the Minister appreciate that the figure of £179 million was the amount of mortgages which the Conservative Government gave in 1964? Does not his answer show how hopelessly inadequate is the sum of £155 million the Government are now offering?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets in touch with the Association of Municipal Corporations, because its representatives and representatives of other associations we have consulted do not take such a view.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the latest available figure for the number of houses, started, under construction and completed during 1970.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many homes were started and finished in the public and private sectors, respectively, in the first three months of 1970 compared with the numbers for the first three months of 1969, 1968 and 1967: and if, in the light of the Budget, he will now consider new measures to increase the numbers of houses started.

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

I am confident that the measures announced by me on 18th March and by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement will greatly benefit the house-building industry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a marked decline in new housing starts in recent years? Will he take further steps to get the building industry out of its present depression, which looks like continuing for many months?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study the proposals I made on 18th March. Any figure for starts is bound to be disappointing, but this figure is substantially higher than hon. Gentlemen opposite achieved in 1963.

Have the discussions now taken place with the 20 worst offenders among the local authorities cutting their housing programmes? What was the outcome, and will my right hon. Friend now consider taking compulsory measures which are available?

My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and I have completed those discussions. We are now assessing the results, and we hope to draw from them conclusions as to the further steps which can be taken to increase the house-building programme. I am not sure that my hon. Friend's suggestion would have the immediate effect of stimulating house-building, but it is one with which I am very sympathetic.

Is it not remarkable, considering all the bravado from the Front Benchħopposite this afternoon, that the Government will build 140,000 fewer houses this year than they promised in their election manifesto?

This is going over old ground. I expect that the result this

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his latest estimate of the number of new houses to be started and completed during 1970.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses he now estimates will be built in 1970.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his revised estimate now of the number of new dwellings to he built during 1970.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has now made of the number of houses likely to be completed in 1970. year will be very much the same as it was last year, which is much better than in any year under a Tory Government except in 1964.

is not it remarkable that when the Conservatives left office there were 434,000 houses under construction, whereas now there are only 411,000 under construction?

The only thing which is remarkable about that is that the only successful year in the Conservative period of office was the General Election year of 1964.

Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), bearing in mind that some local authorities, including Reading Corporation, flatly refuse to start any new houses at all?

Yes, Sir.

The specific measures which I announced on 18th March coupled with the reductions in Bank Rate and the easing of bank lending will help house building, but the year's performance will depend on how quickly housing authorities, prospective purchasers, and house builders respond.

That reply does not give any estimate of the number of houses which are expected. Surely the Minister has some opinion on that. Will he confirm that the number of houses being built is very substantially less than those built in 1964 under the Conservatives. that there are at least 80,000 fewer starts being made this year—

Tory local authorities.

Yes, and many Tory local authorities have been forced to cut back their housing programme at the specific request of the Minister. How does the Minister reconcile this with the Prime Minister's pledge that a Labour Government would build no fewer than 500,000 houses a year by 1970?

It is a little early to say what results will be achieved by the proposals announced only six weeks ago. In the meantime, perhaps the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would like to reflect on why it is that, for example. Thurrock can go ahead with a large house-building programme whereas Kingston-upon-Thames cannot and that Scunthorpe can, while Bradford cannot.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not only the number of houses built that matters but that today more than ever it is the quality of those houses which counts, and that many of us feel we already have too many tower blocks on Merseyside?

I have a good deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. What he says about quality is absolutely right. It is no good simply increasing the numbers if that is done at the expense of quality. One of the things the present Government have done is to make Parker Morris standards mandatory since the beginning of last year.

Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the last quarter's figures for starts? At 79,500 starts in the first quarter of this year were the lowest for years past. How does he reconcile that with the record number of bricks lying on the floor—1,100 million?

The question of starts in the first quarter of the year has been dealt with in answer to a previous Question. I am very happy to repeat that the number started in the first quarter of this year was substantially higher than in the first quarter of 1963.

Will my right hon. Friend institute a pilot study into some of these problems, particularly at Bexley, which, under the lack of inspiration of Conservative leadership, started no houses at all in 1969, presumably on the basis that everyone is going to live on yachts on the Thames now?

We are reviewing a number of programmes, or lack of them, of local authorities. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for pinpointing one authority whose programme, or lack of it, may merit further investigation.

asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning what estimate has been made of the quantity of potentially dangerous toxic fluids, not detectable by the routine tests now being carried out by water authorities, which are likely to be present in rivers or other water sources from which the water supplies are drawn.

No estimate of the total quantity of such fluids in water sources would be meaningful. Methods of testing water are constantly being refined and improved, and there is no evidence to suggest that public water supplies are other than safe and wholesome. Nevertheless, we aim to widen the margin of safety through continued research, improved local administration and better controls over the sources of pollution.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the evidence given to the Central Advisory Water Committee by the Institution of Water Engineers and the recent report by the Chief Medical Officer of Health of the Ministry of Health which indicates that a very large part of our water supplies are taken from sources polluted by chemicals not easily detectable? Does that not show that there is a very serious source of danger to public health? What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking to deal with this?

I have read both the evidence of the institution, and Sir George Godber's speech. The institution was not mentioning the subject to suggest that public water supplies are dangerously polluted. It was concerned to make the point, with which I agree, that there will be an increasing problem which in its view involves changes in the organisation of the water industry. This question is now being looked at by the Central Advisory Water Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, to what extent it is Her Majesty's Government's policy, in applying to enter the Common Market, to forgo their present powers to settle the terms of the aid given to Scotland, Wales, and other development areas and to conform to Common Market regional policy.

Our regional policies have much in common with those of the Six and we believe them to be fully compatible with membership of the Communities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 14 permanent officials called the Commission, who actually run the Common Market under the Council of Ministers, have recently put forward proposals which would have the effect of depriving member countries of their power to order their internal affairs in this fashion, and which would deprive this country of the ability to carry out the sort of policy which the Government have been carrying out in the last few years? In these circumstances, will he make it a condition of entry to the Common Market that this Article 92 is not applicable to this country?

No, Sir. With respect, my hon. Friend is misinformed, unusually so, if I may say so. The ideas put forward by the Commission, which have not been approved yet, carry with them no implications that would cause us to alter our regional policies. Perhaps I could mention that the Commissioner most responsible for these matters, Herr Von Der Groeben, who came to this country a few months ago, said after examining our regional policies:

" Those areas which have developed their own regional policies have nothing to fear from joining the Community … We are not concerned with interfering in individual regional policies."

asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if his Department will require the economic planning councils in mining areas to examine the possibilities of securing the maximum advantage from the Government's financial assistance to delay pit closures.

Information about impending pit closures supplied by the N.C.B. is carefully considered, in consultation as necessary with the council concerned. The possible use of our powers under the Coal Industry Act, 1967, is taken fully into account.

Is my hon. Friend aware that while this goes so far in dealing with the problem it does not go far enough, and that a large amount of money could have been used by the Northern Economic Planning Board in delaying pit closures and offsetting the effects of rising unemployment? Will he have talks with the board about this?

Frequent discussions take place with the planning councils and hoards on this subject. I would remind my hon. Friend that the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries published last December has demonstrated how costly temporary deferment of pit closures can he in relation to the benefits obtained. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has made clear that it would be appropriate to use the power only for limited periods so there could be no question of using it to postpone all proposed closures indiscriminately.

asked the Prime Minister when he will next take the chair at the National Economic Development Council.

On 3rd June, Sir.

As the Prime Minister will no doubt be discussing unemployment at that meeting, can he tell the House whether, in view of the consistently high level of unemployment, the Labour Government are considering going back to the 1951 formula of Mr. Gaitskell, that 3 per cent. is the rate of unemployment for full employment?

Remembering that particular controversy, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, most unusually for him, he has totally misquoted what Mr. Gaitskell said on that occasion. With regard to unemployment generally, I understand that the House will be debating it tomorrow.

As my right hon. Friend will no doubt be discussing the recovery in our balance of payments, may I ask him whether he is aware that the whole country admires the enormous progress made in this direction? Does he think it would be a good idea to consider giving the Queen's Award for Industry to the retailer on the South Coast who sells more British and Commonwealth food to our Common Market visitors than any of his competitors?

I referred to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question the other day. I did not realise that it was only one retailer. I thought they were all able to provide goods at much lower prices and, judging from what I have read in the newspapers covering this story, this goes far beyond those prices and commodities covered by Common Market policies. It extends to things which are not the subject of Common Market agricultural prices, where we are very much more than competitive. On the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I am aware that the whole country rejoices in the success of the Government and the people in the matter of the balance of payments—

Get on with it.

—including no doubt the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport). Some members of the community are more articulate than others in expressing their pleasure.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a tatement on the progress of the consultations about the possibility of setting up commissioners for local government and for the hospital service.

Consultations are now in progress with the local authority associations on the Government's proposals for a local government commissioner, and with professional and other interests on a health commissioner.

I am grateful for that reply, which is certainly welcome. Is my right hon. Friend also aware that there is clearly a crying need to deal with the problem of democratisation in both these institutions and that we hope he will make a further statement before the Summer Recess?

The Government attach very great importance to the provision of some degree of machinery for investigating grievances on a local government basis and independently and also in the Health Service. It is right that these consultations should be taken a little further before any statement is made.

Before reaching any final conclusion on these important matters, would it not be helpful to the Prime Minister to hear the views of Members on the working of the Parliamentary Commissioner? Is it not regrettable that, despite the fact that he has now been working for three years, none of his reports or the reports of his Select Committee have yet been fully debated in the House?

This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but the rather cautious proposal introduced about the ombudsman. turned down by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, has already had some valuable results.

asked the Prime Minister why it has been necessary to expand the number of staff in the office of the Chief Information Adviser to Her Majesty's Government serving in the Cabinet Office from nil in 1969–70 to eight in 1970–71 at a cost to public funds of £24,200 per annum.

I explained the initial staffing of this office in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 18th December, 1969. There has been no expansion beyond this.—[Vol. 793, c. 410.]

Is the Prime Minister aware that since October, 1964, the taxpayers have had to pay for an extra 139 information officers in Government Departments? Does not this figure, with the extra eight in the Cabinet Office, reflect the Prime Minister's desire to manage the news in his own favour at someone else's expense?

I am sorry to have to correct the hon. Gentleman's figure. The increase since 1964 is not 139, but a higher figure than that. Unfortunately, we do not have a precisely comparable figure for the increase in the information service under the Conservative Government. In those Departments for which figures are available, the figures are higher than the hon. Gentleman suggested. From 1964–69 the increase in the information service under the present Administration has been by 44 per cent. in information officers. In the four and a half years up to 1964 in the same Departments the increase was not 44 per cent., but 59 per cent.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable demand from the public for more information, and is not it odd that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are constantly pressing the Government to give information on all sorts of matters, often when it is difficult, are now apparently arguing that the public should be deprived of information which they want from Ministers?

No, Sir, I want to be fair to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed, I have offered to put Government resources at their disposal to make clear the cost of their programmes, provided they tell us and the country what their programmes are.

Will the Prime Minister tell us why he claims credit for building on the basis of Tory extravagance? Is this what leads him to believe, in an unusual burst of immodesty on his part, that he is the lesser of two evils?

I have indeed used that phrase, and I have not yet met anybody who disagreed with it. What I have succeeded in doing in five and a half years, in addition to meeting the voracious demands for information from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, is to restrain the growth in the information service.

asked the Prime Minister if he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the problems arising from gambling and gaming laws.

No, Sir. I am satisfied that the Gaming Board will continue to keep a tight control over gaming.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Gaming Act has been one of the most effective means of backing up the police? It has cut down the number of clubs and got rid of some of the undesirable elements, the racketeers and musclemen, who had come into the gaming world as the direct result of the naive legislation drawn up by the Conservative Government? Will he continue to give full support to the Gaming Board in its efforts to bring gaming into manageable proportions?

Yes, Sir. When right hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to make law and order a football in party politics, they should take account of the fact that the Act of 1960, however well intentioned, was, as my hon. Friend said, very naive and led to the danger of a big importation—a brain drain in reverse—of Mafia types into this country. It is the action of this Government that has stopped it.

Leaving politics out of it, will the Prime Minister keep a close eye on the workings of the Gaming Board, bearing in mind that the principles of justice which we seek to apply in these matters ought to apply even to people who run gaming establishments?

The principles of justice are laid down, in the Act introduced by this Administration, by Parliament, and these were matters of much debate and many amendments. It must always be for Parliament in drafting legislation to bear this in mind. But the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree, leaving politics out of it, as I know he always does, like his right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary —[Interruption.] We put up with a lot from right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Leaving politics out of it—it is our politics that stopped the Mafia, not theirs.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I entirely agree with what he has said about the Act? Indeed, unlike my right hon. Friend, I voted against it. Is he also aware that the chairman of the board is finding his powers inadequate and urgently requires additional powers, and will my right hon. Friend reconsider looking into this matter?

Certainly, Sir. If any powers are needed to make this control effective—and this is control not on the question of justice referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, but on the more seamy side of gaming—it will be for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to bring proposals before the House.

Is the Prime Minister aware that it is because of the widespread feeling that a Mafia is operating that perfectly respectable casinos in perfectly respectable towns like Banbury have been closed down? Should not much more latitude be allowed to local authorities to decide whether casinos should continue?

I am aware of representations on this question from a number of localities, in addition to that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but these are matters to address to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and not to be taken up at this time.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that there are three Treasury Ministers in the Cabinet, he will include an additional Scottish Minister.

asked the Prime Minister if he will include an additional Scottish Minister in the Cabinet.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has now held this post longer than any of his predecessors, is a very effective representative in the Cabinet of Scotland and of Scottish interests.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that none of us on this side of the House will be in the slightest degree alarmed by the answer which he has given? All of us in Scotland are highly gratified with the results achieved by my right hon. Friend in Scotland and for Scotland and regard the attempt by the Opposition to decry the fact that my right hon. Friend is not in the inner Cabinet as a sheer bit of nonsense?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will appreciate that my right hon. Friend needs no second voice to further his work for Scotland inside the Cabinet and throughout the Government machine. If his predecessors had pressed the case of Scotland with similar vigour, he would not have inherited what he did.

When is the Secretary of State to be given a first voice in the inner Cabinet? The Prime Minister has told us that the Secretary of State is summoned to the inner Cabinet, like the Minister without Portfolio, or the deputy chief bottle-washer at the Ministry of Public Building and Works, when the affairs of his Department are under consideration—

MacFauntleroy, sit down!

Will the Prime Minister say whether this reflects his opinion of his right hon. Friend's competence or of Scotland's interests?

The longer the hon. Gentleman goes on the more he shows his total ignorance of the Government machine, and ignorance which he will have for a long time to come and which is likely to grow rather than diminish. My right hon. Friend is present on all occasions when anything affecting the interest of Scotland is discussed. Unlike his predecessors he pipes up for Scotland and fights for Scotland.

I accept what my right hon. Friend has said on this matter, but does not he realise that another matter is inherent in this Question? Has not the time arrived when Scotland deserves one representative in the inner Cabinet all the time and one representative in the Cabinet itself?

The phrase used by my hon. Friend is not known to the constitution of this country. As I have said, I assure my hon. Friend that, whenever any issues affecting Scotland are involved, my right hon. Friend is there. I wish that I could portray to the House the effectiveness of my right hon. Friend not only in meetings, but also outside individual meetings, in the pressures which he puts on all his colleagues to see that the interests of Scotland are safeguarded.

Would the Prime Minister give an idea of the range of subjects discussed by the inner Cabinet which do not affect Scotland? Would he agree that the exclusion of the Secretary of State for Scotland from the inner Cabinet is an unprecedented devaluation of the office and an insult to Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I have already answered this question twice. What the hon. Gentleman will never know, nor will any of us, is the basis on which decisions were taken in the Conservative Government by cliques, not Cabinet committees.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his reply to my hon. Friend was a little obscure? Could he confirm that the reason the Secretary of State is not in the inner Cabinet is not his personal qualities, to which tribute has been rightly paid, but the fact that the Prime Minister does not consider that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be in the inner Cabinet?

The concept of the inner Cabinet is not one known to the constitution. All decisions are taken by the Cabinet itself or by appropriate Cabinet: committees. My right hon. Friend is present on all matters affecting Scotland. En many other matters, as I have said, both in his internal administration within Scotland, which arouses the admiration of hon. Members opposite, even if they will not admit it publicly, and also in his work for Scotland, his work transcends both in duration and in quality that of any of this Conservative predecessors.

If there is no constitutional position of an inner Cabinet could the Prime Minister say what 11 Ministers and the Chief Whip were doing for a whole day at Chequers one Sunday without the Secretary of State for Scotland?

It is not the practice to reveal these matters, any more than there was any revelation of the meeting of the Cabinet at Chequers to plan the election programme in 1963, nor was there any information, until it was given by Mr. Nutting, about secret conclaves in Chequers before the Suez operation, unknown to the Cabinet.

While nobody doubts the real needs of Scotland or decries the excellent work of the Secretary of State, would the Prime Minister in recognising the employment needs of Scotland and the interests of industry, trade and commerce, reconsider his answer with regard to appointing separate Ministers for each of these Departments?

My hon. Friend will he aware of the wide-ranging responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He will also be aware that the same Secretary of State introduced the Highlands and Islands Development Board when right hon. Gentlemen opposite refused to do so and indeed threatened to vote against it. They will also know that, due to the activities of my right hon. Friend, emigration from Scotland has been sharply changed, as can be seen from the latest figures published by my right hon. Friend.

On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about the increasing practice of Questions put down for Oral Answer by the Prime Minister being transferred to other Ministers?

At the beginning of last week I tabled for Oral Answer today to the Prime Minister a Question asking whether

" he will initiate an inquiry into the cause of the decline in the rate of house-building? "

Yesterday, I received notification that this Question had been transferred to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Erskine May, on gage 350, on the matter of transfer of Questions, says:

" A question should be addressed to the Minister who is primarily responsible "—

Wait for it:

" and misdirected questions are transferred by the clerks at the table on the notification of the departments concerned."

The issue here is who has primary responsibility for inquiring into the decline in the rate of house-building. I suggest that it would be inappropriate for the Minister of Housing to take that responsibility. This is an issue on which the Prime Minister, on many occasions, has accepted personal responsibility. I need say no more than perhaps quote from his well-known speech, in which he assumed that responsibility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] He said, when he pledged that Labour would build 500,000 houses—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not wander from his point of order to a point of political argument.

I recognise that, Mr. Speaker, but, according to Erskine May, the question is one of primary responsibility. This responsibility rests on the Prime Minister and I am entitled to pray in aid the words from his own speech so that there can be no doubt about that acceptance. I hope that you will bear with me if I quote the relevant passage— [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] The Prime Minister, referring to his pledge of 500,000 houses, said:

" This is not a lightly given promise. It is a pledge. We shall achieve the 500,000 target and we shall not allow any developments, any circumstances, however adverse, to deflect us from our aim."

In subsequent debates, when the Prime Minister has been challenged on this subject, he has prayed in aid devaluation. —[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] That could not be the primary responsibility of the present Minister of Housing. I would suggest, therefore, that the Question was not misdirected to the Prime Minister. Since there is a conflict in what the effects of devaluation may be, I would say that immediately after that the Prime Minister, in a broadcast, referred to the priority programme—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting from his point of order. He must not make a political speech.

I recognise that, Mr. Speaker, and I abide by your Ruling. But so that I can establish the primary responsibility for inquiring into the rate of house-building, and the fact that the Prime Minister is shedding responsibility by transferring his Questions, I believe it right to seek to put forward those occasions on which, in various ways, he has accepted that personal responsibility. If it be that having failed in his pledge he seeks to shift the responsibility on to the Minister of Housing—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is again drifting into a political speech.

I must, of course, again accept your Ruling, but I think that my point is made.

If the Prime Minister, by transferring this Question, denies primary responsibility for the declining rate of house-building, I must accept that. But let him say so. I feel that this was a Question tabled to him for Oral Answer which he should have answered and not transferred to another Minister.

I am seized of the point of order which the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) has made. It is not unknown for an hon. Member to be dissatisfied with the transfer of a Question from one Minister to another. But I must rule against the hon. Gentleman. This is a repetition of a Ruling that the Chair has given many times this century. It has been ruled on numerous occasions by my predecessors, as well as by me, that the transfer of Questions from one Minister to another is not a matter for the Chair.

According to page 349 of Erskine May, my responsibility in regard to Questions

" … is limited to their compliance with the rules of the House."

The basic rule is that there must be some degree of Ministerial responsibility for the substance of a Question. But, once a Question has been accepted, the Ministers have the right to decide which one of them can most appropriately answer it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you care to reflect on whether we have heard a speech from the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West i Mr. Tom Boardman) in favour of a Ten-Minute Rule Bill, or a long harangue of parliamentary cheating?

The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his opinion.

Further to that point of order. This is a serious matter—

It is a serious matter, and it is a serious matter on which the Chair has ruled. Mr. Speaker has ruled categorically that the transfer of Questions by Ministers is not in any way a matter for the Chair or a matter for order. It is a matter for the Ministers themselves.

My point is this, Sir. Back-bench hon. Members are having increasing difficulty in pinning anything on the Prime Minister [Laughter.] The Prime Minister is responsible for the overall conduct of his Government, I think. But it will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that I tabled a Question to the Prime Minister—

Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty in the first part of his point of order. But the issue that he is raising now is identical with the one on which I have ruled. The transfer of Questions is a matter for the Ministers. It is not a matter of order, or a matter for the Chair.