asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he proposes to expand the council house building programme; and if he will include using the available compulsory powers under the Housing Act, 1957 where local authorities are cutting down their building programmes in areas of serious housing need.

In my review of finance and subsidies, I am studying how best to direct help to authorities in the greatest need to encourage them to undertake adequate programmes of slum clearance, improvement and new building for the homeless and the badly housed. I am not at present aware of any occasion for the exercise of default powers.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I appeal to him, now that he has become the Minister, to reconsider and to withdraw his advice to Conservative councils to reject the temptation to go on building houses, otherwise, half the population which depend on them, as they cannot buy houses on mortgage, will be without any hope at all.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I have never made such a suggestion to Conservative councils. The hon. Gentleman knows that in the circular which I recently sent out to councils I urged all authorities with bad housing problems to continue providing council houses.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the cutbacks in housing made by many local authorities, such as Leicester, were at the express request of the then Labour Government during one of their economic crises?

There was certainly a request which affected certain areas. I do not know the details about Leicester.

Whilst associating myself with the welcome to the right hon. Gentleman and also his conversion, if that is what it is, on the subject of council house building, may I ask him to comment on his speech to the Westminster Forum, which he did not deny when it was put to him, in which he said that the Conservatives, if elected, would put a curb on council house building? May we take it that that speech can now be forgotten and put into the wastepaper basket?

That misquotation of the speech can certainly be forgotten.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will encourage local authorities to increase their building of houses both for rent and for sale.

The Government have already announced their intention to refashion the housing subsidies so as to assist effectively local authorities to provide for the homeless and badly housed who cannot house themselves. Building for owner occupation is the function of private enterprise, and save in exceptional circumstances local authorities will not be permitted to build for sale.

I welcome that statement, but is the Minister aware of the anxiety being caused because of the past Conservative practice of severe cutbacks in local authority building? Will he do everything possible to ensure that that building goes ahead?

I am anxious to encourage the building of houses for those currently badly housed and living in bad conditions.

Will my right hon. Friend remember that next to the availability of bank credit, which has been mentioned, the availability of land is the important factor in the private building sector? I hope that he will look at the zoning to see that land is available.

I agree with my hon. Friend that that is very much the base of the present housing problem, and already we are carrying out urgent talks on this subject.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals he has for the future development of local authority housing; what targets of slum clearance and new building he proposes for each year: and if he will make a statement.

As already announced the Government intends to refashion the subsidy system so as to concentrate help on those people and areas with the worst problems. I do not propose targets for the entire industry at this stage.

In opposition the Minister made a great deal of mileage out of the fact that in our five years of Government we had built only 500,000 more houses than the previous Tory Government built in their last five years. At the same time he was encouraging Tory housing committee chairmen to sabotage the nation's housing effort. There is no other word for it. Does he not think that the House, and, indeed, the nation, deserve a reply to this Question so that we can know what the Government are doing to help those families who are in need?

I can understand the hon. Lady regretting the targets of the previous Government. What I made a lot of mileage out of was the fact that in the last year of the previous Government fewer houses were built than in 1964.

Has not the time come to recognise that the whole policy of segregating people physically on council estates is socially divisive and a mistake? Would it not be better in future to subsidise families and not the houses?

That is a matter which will generally be considered in our review of the whole housing subsidy system.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he proposes to expand the building programme in the private housing sector; and if they will include permission to the banks to include loans to house builders in the priority lending list.

We have embarked upon discussion with the builders to discuss ways in which the decline in the building programme in the private housing sector can be arrested.

Will the Minister tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the serious decline in the private sector is due mainly to the fact that small and medium-sized builders cannot get bank loans, and, secondly, that there has been a great improvement in the country's financial position during the last six months which should permit the situation to be altered?

The availability of bank loans is one of the matters which we are discussing with builders, which, among other factors, will improve house-building programmes.

Has my hon. Friend found any evidence for the theory that the reduction by 41,000 of the number of houses built in the private sector last year was due to the influence of Tory councils?

I would rather await the outcome of the discussions, when we can make a full statement on this matter, with the co-operation of the builders.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he proposes to take to speed up the clearance of derelict areas.

My right hon. Friend will consider what steps will be most effective.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is a good start apparently to withdraw the White Paper which his predecessor put out on the whole subject of pollution? What is being done to re-emphasise the assurance that within 10 years the major part of dereliction will be cleared?

I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the outcome of the Government's review of public expenditure as a whole. My right hon. Friend is eager that steps should continue to be taken to deal with derelict areas.

Will the hon. Gentleman at least give the House an assurance that the very much enlarged programme of expenditure for the next three years which I announced in April will be maintained in the face of any pressures from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

No, Sir. I cannot give that undertaking at present.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what are his plans for ensuring an adequate supply of building land ahead of immediate requirements.

My right hon. Friend appreciates that the availability of land is essential to the revival of the house-building programme and we are beginning discussions with local authorities about this.

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is that land has been brought forward in too small quantities and only from time to time, and that this has probably added quite considerably to the cost to the home buyer? Will my hon. Friend consider a ten-year rolling programme for the release of land in the future?

I agree with the first remarks of my hon. Friend. On the second part of his question, I think that a lot depends on regional planning, and we are pressing forward with that as best we can.

The Minister said that the Government were beginning discussions with local authorities. Is he not aware that discussions on this matter have been going on for some time, particularly with county planning authorities? Does he appreciate that one of the difficulties, that of the resistance to releasing land, can be overcome by the use of the Land Commission in selected areas?

No, Sir.

While recognising the need for more land for building, may I ask my hon. Friend to remember the importance of preserving the Green Belt?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what are his plans for encouraging the private building of flats to rent.

As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend is very anxious to reverse the present decline in this and other kinds of house building. He is studying the financial and other implications of this problem, and I would ask my hon. Friend to await the outcome of this study.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he bear in mind that official encouragement is the obvious answer to this problem, and that if houses were built to rent they could make a big contribution to the continuing housing shortage?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

May I first congratulate both Ministers on putting in an appearance today? May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as Conservative- controlled councils seem to have put a brake on council house building, which seems a most callous thing to do, and seems to many people to have been done merely as a political gesture to hit the then Labour Government, he will reverse that trend, knowing that many people are still homeless because of that callous manoeuvre?

I do not accept the implications of that question, nor do I think it relevant to the Question on the Order Paper.

Will my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend bear in mind particularly in this connection the recommendation of the Milner Holland Committee that the allowance of depreciation for tax purposes in these cases would be a great encouragement to the provision of accommodation to rent?

That will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I shall bear my right hon. Friend's views in mind and keep in touch with the Chancellor in reviewing this issue.

May I ask the Minister whether a check will be made on Hackney Borough Council which has cut its programme from 2,000 to 600 homes a year? There is evidence that councils are cutting back their building programmes in areas of great housing shortage.

I would not without notice wish to comment on what takes place in Hackney. That is an entirely different matter, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about it if he wishes to do so.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he issued the circular to local authorities removing restrictions on the sale of council houses.

To encourage the spread of home ownership and to increase the opportunities for tenants of council houses to own the houses in which they live.

But if the Minister has just awakened to the fact that thousands of families, white and coloured, and their children are living in grossly overcrowded conditions in many of our towns and cities, apart from London, does he realise that by sending out this circular to local authorities he is reducing the pool of houses to let? What we need is more houses. Will he get on with this?

I believe that those people in bad housing conditions and on housing waiting lists will benefit more from what is being done as a result of this circular than by waiting for existing tenants to vacate their homes.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in Liverpool about 10 per cent. of the people are rehoused each year in corporation houses which become empty during that year, and that his policy, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that all houses would be sold, which would remove the opportunity for that 10 per cent.? While there may be a case for this policy in those areas where there is no shortage, or no great shortage, surely this is a detrimental step for the Minister to take in respect of Liverpool?

I do not think that the large number of people living in council houses should be deprived of the opportunity of buying their own homes, which I wish to encourage them to do. It was made perfectly clear in my circular that resources released as a result of this policy should be used to help those people on the housing list.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hundreds of council tenants in my constituency welcome his decision?

Yes.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most difficult social cases to rehouse are the very people in need of old council houses with cheaper rents? How, therefore, will this policy help? Can the Minister give any estimate of the cost of replacing the older houses that he is selling by new houses in our big cities?

Houses will be sold within a fixed margin of the market price and not the original cost price. In my view this will release resources which will help those people still on the housing list.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about his official visit to the London Borough of Lambeth.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he will now take, following his recent official visit to Brixton, to alleviate the housing problems of the London Borough of Lambeth.

I was pleased to find the Lambeth Council engaged in an expanded programme of new house building, a large slum clearance programme and a campaign for house improvements.

Having visited some overcrowded houses in my constituency, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the council will now receive loan sanction from the Government to buy empty houses in the same road to alleviate overcrowded housing conditions? Secondly, can he say whether there will be increased housing finance from the Government for Lambeth, which the borough has requested? Has he discussed with the council its proposal in respect of concessionary fares to old-age pensioners if it receives an increased rate support grant?

I should require notice of the last question. The question of financing areas like Lambeth, with a serious financial problem, is something to be considered in the general review of housing finance.

Is the Minister aware that his whiz-kid descent upon Lambeth, accompanied by loud protestations of horrified disgust, is not worth a light unless he follows it up with some concrete action? How much more money will he give Lambeth? Is he willing to give a guarantee that Lambeth will get more money under the review that he says is going on at present?

As the object of the review is to assist areas where housing is worst the review will be of benefit to areas such as Lambeth. As for my visit there, I particularly complained at the manner in which certain tenants were being exploited and were unaware of their rights. As a result, I have increased the expenditure to be incurred in bringing to the attention of these immigrants their proper rights and powers.

Does the Minister accept that one of the main underlying problems of Lambeth and similar areas is the shortage of land on which to rehouse people in order to pursue improvements and clearance? Is the Minister aware of the difficulties that the Borough of Lambeth is experiencing—difficulties that are repeated elsewhere in London and in other areas—in getting land for local authority purposes in outer London areas such as Sutton, which prevents rehousing? What action is he proposing to take to get the Sutton Council and others like it to release land in outer London so as to help the Inner London twilight areas?

We are sending out the recent report on housing in London, and in the circular attached we are urging local authorities to take notice of this problem, and we are entering discussions with them.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make proposals to reduce mortgage interest rates.

It is not possible to isolate mortgage interest rates from the general level of interest rates. I am satisfied that the building societies recognise the need to reduce their lending rates as soon as this can be done without reducing the flow of deposits.

But since the hon. Gentlemen, when in opposition, slated the former Government over the housing interest rates, will the Government act as quickly on the G.L.C. mortgage rates—which have gone up—as they did on giving sanction to sell council houses? Can we have a little instant government to make house purchase easier?

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that local authorities must make sure that they are not running lending schemes at a loss, and that they also have to borrow for their lending.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that whereas Bank Rate has been reduced twice, from 8 per cent. to 7 per cent., there has been no commensurate reduction in mortgage interest rates for some time? Although it does not automatically follow that there should be a reduction, there is no doubt that building societies today have ample funds to lend but are frustrated from doing so due to the high interest rates, which are deterring borrowers?

That is true, but my hon. Friend would agree that Bank Rate is relevant only in so far as it reflects and affects rates of interest in general.

Is the Minister completely unaware that in the recent General Election every Tory candidate was attacking the Labour Government for not reducing mortgage rates and was promising that a Tory Government would do so?

Perhaps I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. George Brown made some very foolish comments in an earlier General Election.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make an official visit to Liverpool.

I hope to visit many housing authorities with serious housing problems in due course. Prior to becoming the Minister I made several visits to Liverpool and visited a number of the areas with housing problems. I hope to make further visits in the future.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for visiting Liverpool, because it helped tremendously to increase my majority, but can he give an assurance that he will continue the policy of his predecessor and that Liverpool will remain an area of special need? Will he continue the policy of his predecessor, so that when Liverpool asks for permission to build houses it will be given that permission and a chance to show what it can do?

I have no intention of stopping Liverpool from proceeding as fast as possible with its housing programme.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall visiting Liverpool and discussing its housing problems with the Tory Council? Does he subscribe to the view that in the next two or three years there will be a surplus of 10,000 houses in Liverpool? Will that be because the Tories will have raised the rents to such an extent that people will take their names off the housing register?

I mainly visited the Snap project and I particularly discussed the two improvement areas which the Liverpool Council has set up, both of which are progressing, but obviously with a city with such a housing problem as Liverpool I shall keep in close contact with the local authority.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what discussions he has had with the Building Societies Association in relation to Her Majesty's Government's housing policies.

I met representatives of the building societies for the first time on 29th June at a meeting of my Housing Programme Working Party, and I intend to have continuing discussions with them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the supplementary question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)? Is he aware that the hon. Gentleman's view is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and that it would help if he could make a statement on the matter as soon as possible?

I certainly hope that the volume of funds coming into building societies will be sufficient to support an expanding building programme.

Once again the right hon. Gentleman talks about hoping. There was a clear General Election pledge by the Tory Party. What will the right hon. Gentleman do to carry it out?

To which General Election pledge is the right hon. Gentleman referring?

On a point of order. On almost every Question someone has risen from the Opposition Front Bench. Are they going to continue to take advantage—[Interruption.]

Order. I dealt with that point last Thursday.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if it is his policy to advise local authorities to charge their tenants for repairs.

Authorities have certain statutory repairing obligations. Beyond this policy is a matter for local decision.

Is the Minister aware that the Newcastle City Council is charging tenants for all repairs? Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that this is a grossly undesirable practice, which is likely to cause good houses to fall into disrepair, thereby frustrating his own policy of selling council houses?

That is a matter of policy for the Newcastle Council. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific point to raise perhaps he will write to me, when I shall be willing to look into it.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government by how much he estimates rents of Newcastle Corporation and Newburn Urban District Council houses will increase on average on the basis that housing subsidies are abolished.

I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on 7th July.—[Vol. 803, c. 19.]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am sure that my constituents will be grateful to have it straight from the horse's mouth. Can he advise the House when he intends to legislate to abolish housing subsidies, which is so genteelly referred to in the Gracious Speech as "restructuring"?

The hon. Gentleman must remember what was said in the Queen's Speech. That remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and before any change is made in the system by recasting housing subsidies, there will have to be lengthy consultations with local authorities and others concerned.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on his plans to renegotiate the housing subsidy system.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he has regarding the level of the grant to local authorities for council house building.

My right hon. Friend is now considering how the present housing subsidies might be recast so as better to serve the Government's housing objectives of giving greater priority to the homeless and the badly housed.

But could the hon. Gentleman not clarify this business of "recasting" or "refashioning" or "restructuring", or whatever it is, the housing subsidies? Does it not mean that he intends to cut drastically the overall level of housing subsidies, which will mean that the rents of many council tenants will be forced up even faster than they are rising at the moment?

I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the passage in the Gracious Speech, which said that housing subsidies will be refashioned so as to give more help to those in greatest need. I should have thought that that was very acceptable.

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it will give help to those in the greatest need if he slashes the housing subsidies of £130 million which the Labour Government gave, which will force up council rents and make it much more difficult for local authorities to build houses?

As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), the purpose of recasting or refashioning the housing subsidies is to give more help to those in greatest need.

In pursuit of that objective, which has been mentioned a great deal by hon. Members opposite, will the hon. Gentleman and the Minister con- sider pursuing the consideration which the previous Administration gave, as part of their reconsideration of housing finance, to a national rebate scheme to apply to people in private accommodation as well as public?

It is far too early at this stage to reach any conclusions on this matter, but certainly all points of view will be borne in mind.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will increase the percentage of Government grant to local authorities for the cost of strengthening tower blocks of the Ronan Point variety.

I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave on 7th July to a question by the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram).—[Vol. 803, c. 20.]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall the Report stage of the Housing Bill on 18th June last year, when Conservative hon. Members, including the present Minister of Housing, voted for an Amendment to increase the grant for this work? Will the Government now explain to the local authorities concerned why this pledge has been broken, along with a number of others?

This is a decision made by the previous Administration. My hon. Friends, when in Opposition, strongly supported any attempt to raise the level of the grant from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. But I am satisfied that it is impossible for us to disturb this settlement.

As one who persistently and consistently criticised the previous Government for their parsimonious attitude on this all-important question, and as one who moved the Amendment to which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) referred, may I ask whether we can be assured that as the present Government said that they would be a better Government, they will do something better on this issue than the previous Government did?

I have looked at this matter very carefully, in view of the hon. Member's long and persistent interest on behalf of his constituents, and I am very sorry that I have to adhere to the previous decision of 50 per cent. It is a matter of regret to me and, I know, to the hon. Member. But I assure him that I have looked at this matter very carefully.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will give a list of the councils who have notified his Department that they will claim the 50 per cent. costs towards strengthening high-rise blocks of flats resultant upon the Ronan Point disaster; and whether he will consider the system of compensation so as to enable those councils with the higher costs to receive higher compensation so that all councils are committed to an equal outlay from their local rates.

As regards the first part of the Question, so far 16 local authorities have submitted claims for grant and I will, with permission, publish their names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the previous Minister of Housing and Local Government was very weak in standing up to the Treasury on this question? Is he aware that the London boroughs and authorities throughout the country affected in this way are strongly against the policy pursued by the former Labour Government and the present Conservative Government on this issue? Will the hon. Gentleman urge his right hon. Friend to stand up to the Treasury to ensure that these people are fairly and properly treated because it will be the poor who will once again suffer unless something is done about this problem?

I have explained that this was a decision of the Labour Government I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman on this matter.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfatcory nature of the Minister's Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what changes he is proposing to make in the mortgage option scheme; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend is exploring ways of improving the option mortgage scheme.

Yes, but will the Minister of Housing insist that the building societies do not obstruct a more flexible scheme, which would allow people to opt in or out of the scheme, as was clearly implied by everything that the right hon. Gentleman has ever said?

As I said in my original reply, we are exploring ways of making the scheme flexible. I am sure that there is good will on both sides, among the building societies and ourselves, in attempts to make this scheme more flexible. It is being re-examined.

In considering the flexibility, will my hon. Friend make sure that he bears in mind the more elderly, those over 55, who still may want to use the mortgage option scheme and who have as much right to use it as have some younger people?

I will bear my hon. Friend's views very much in mind in our discussions with the building societies.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals have been submitted to him for a new sewerage scheme for Bideford and Northam.

None, Sir, but I understand that applications for planning permission for alternative sites for a treatment works will be considered by the county council in September.

But would my hon. Friend remember that an early decision is required on this scheme, bearing in mind that we are in a development area? Will he also give a firm assurance that no financial restrictions will be imposed once a decision is made? Will he give every assistance to these two local authorities to come to an early decision?

Certainly. It depends, of course, on when the two councils can agree upon a scheme and prepare it, but the financial side must obviously depend upon the scheme itself.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will advise the Land Commission to terminate its activities in the Walderslade area of the Maidstone constituency immediately.

The Land Commission's planning application and draft compulsory purchase order are formally before my right hon. Friend for decision. He will make an announcement as soon as possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are living in a state of uncertainty owing to the rascally activities of the Land Commission set up by the previous Labour Government? Will he take steps to terminate its activities in the Maidstone constituency, and elsewhere, as quickly as possible?

I am very conscious of the need to make an early statement on this matter to remove uncertainties, but it is a matter which, through no fault of the present Government, is very complex, and a hurried statement might result in further uncertainties.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about the Government's policy in respect of the future of local government.

We shall implement local government reform on the principles laid down in my speech in the House on 18th February in the debate on the previous Government's White Paper Cmnd. 4276, and in accordance with the undertaking given in our Election manifesto.

The right hon. Gentleman has given us more detail in an interesting article today in the Birmingham Post—more than he has given Parliament, either in that debate or since. What time scale does he intend in order to bring about these major reforms, which he writes about today, and what proposals has he to deal with local government boundaries which he also writes about today?

There is nothing in that article in the Birmingham Post which is any different from that which was laid down in my speech in February.

But will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the previous Government's approval in principle of the Maud Report is cancelled? Will he go at least that far?

What I want to avoid is the view that Maud is scrapped or destroyed or that no notice is taken of it. Both the previous Government and the present Government considered that the Report was very important and that any reform of local government must consider it, and belief in the need to create larger authorities is shared by both sides of the House.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will give an assurance that he will seek to make no amendment to the principles of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967 which will have the effect of increasing the price of the freehold.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will seek to amend the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967 to remove the limitation by reference to rateable value on the right of enfranchisement.

The Government are currently reviewing all housing legislation but we have no plans at present for amending the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will be received with a certain amount of alarm? Is he aware that the key to the Leasehold Reform Act is the price at which the freehold is sold, and that ideas that this is under review by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be popular among many hundreds of thousands of leaseholders?

The hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand my Answer. I said that we have no plans at present for amending the Act.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has made a decision in the future of London parks administration.

No, Sir. Before reaching a decision on the scheme submitted by the Greater London Council under Section 58(2) of the London Government Act, 1963, I shall need to consider any representations which interested bodies and members of the public may wish to make to me. For this purpose copies of the scheme are being made available for inspection by the public.

I am very grateful for that reply. Will the Minister undertake to receive a deputation from the trade unions on matters of promotion policy, negotiating machinery and the training scheme which the Greater London Council has maintained heretofore?

That is a different question, which perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to put down on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to encourage housing advisory centres.

I have already personally visited a number of housing advisory centres and we are collating information for the purpose of encouraging the creation of housing advisory services in many parts of the country.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that future centres not only give advice but give proper propaganda in favour of the possibility of starting people on the way towards home ownership, thus reducing the demand on council housing?

One of the impressive things about the housing advisory centres run by, for example, Shelter and the Catholic Housing Association, and the one at Lambeth is the way in which they advise people on how to start home ownership.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to encourage the sale of new town houses to tenants.

I shall certainly be doing everything I can to encourage these sales, and positive steps for increasing them will be discussed with corporations and the Commission over the next few weeks, when I hope to be able to make a statement.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no substantial difference between the treatment, from the point of view of the terms of sale, of council houses and new town houses; and if there is a discount of up to 20 per cent. on the sale of new town houses, may I assure my right hon. Friend that he will be surprised at the demand that will arise?

I am anxious to encourage home ownership in new towns and elsewhere.

Nevertheless, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that a house will never be sold over the head of a sitting tenant who does not want to buy?

As far as public authority housing is concerned, certainly.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that unless he extends to new town houses the terms contained in his recent circular about council house sales, there could be great discrimination shown against new town tenants, who might have to pay up to 25 per cent. more for a similar house in a similar street in a similar town?

I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of these points. Many complicated details are involved. These are being discussed and I have promised to make a statement as soon as possible.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the sale of council houses but against local authorities building houses for sale?

The reason is simple: the building industry is quite able to cope with this problem.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what forecast he has made of the anticipated number of starts and completions of houses in 1970.

Starts in the first five months of 1970 were over 18,000 fewer than in the first five months of 1969, and completions were over 6,000 fewer. The figures for the year as a whole may be worse than those for 1969.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that confirms my worst fears and that when the Labour Party were in power I pointed this out but that hon. Gentlemen opposite merely laughed? Is he aware that the building industry now has the highest unemployment in recent memory? What does he hope to do to get things going again satisfactorily in the industry?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about this being an extremely worrying situation. We are doing all we can to reverse this trend. We are also concerned with the inflation in house prices that we have inherited.

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that one contribution to resolving this problem might be to allow the 20 or more local authorities which wish to build houses for sale to go ahead and do so?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that would not be a solution to the problem which has been outlined.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what undertakings have been given so far this year to his Department by the London Borough of Havering concerning the number of houses which the Borough proposes to build this year and next.

The council is to give further consideration to the size of its future house-building programme as soon as the results of a detailed survey by its own officers of the needs of the borough are available.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that until the Conservative Party won control of Havering, the borough council was building 800 houses a year, but that its first proposal this year is to build only 12 houses? Is he aware that continual prodding from his Department is necessary if the 4,000 people on the waiting list of this borough are to stand any chance of being rehoused?

I do not accept the figure of 12 houses which the hon. Gentleman gives as the council's target. However, I hope to see the study when the council has prepared it, and then I will discuss it with the authority.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will extend his policy of selling off subsidised council houses to sitting tenants to those persons who are in subsidised Government houses and flats.

Government accommodation is provided for people carrying out a particular job and, therefore, normally cannot be sold to a sitting tenant. This does not preclude in appropriate circumstances the sale of a redundant dwelling to a sitting tenant.

If such dwellings are good enough to sell to poorer tenants in poorer areas, why not allow them to be sold to richer tenants in and around Whitehall?

We believe that they will have sufficiently long leases on these premises not to be interested in the freeholds.

asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint to the Cabinet a Minister responsible for the environment.

I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on the Address on 2nd July.—[Vol. 803, c. 93.]

Who will be responsible for representing the interests of expenditure on the environment in the public expenditure sub-committee of the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet?

I explained to the House in the debate on the Address that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is in the Cabinet, is carrying the main responsibility for environmental problems. However, I am reviewing the whole structure of this matter to ensure that we get it right.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the measures which the Labour Government took to protect the environment received widespread acclaim from hon. Members on both sides of the House? Is he further aware that his continued refusal to give an answer to this Question suggests that the present Government are seriously downgrading this entire crucial issue?

There is absolutely no justification whatever for that allegation. I am taking what I consider to be proper time to examine the whole structure of these Departments in dealing with the environment.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to South Africa in the near future.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Portugal.

No, Sir.

Why does not the right hon. Gentleman decide to visit his friends more often? Has he asked Mr. Vorster to act as the go-between in negotiations with Mr. Ian Smith?

I have no plans to visit these countries at present, though we are in diplomatic relations with them. There is no truth in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question

While sympathising with the Prime Minister's distaste for such a meeting, may I ask him to find a method to convey to the South African and Portuguese Governments the fact that Her Majesty's Government will not condone the infringement of human rights and that we shall respect United Nations and Council of Europe resolutions on the subject—if that is, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman's intention?

That is the view of Her Majesty's Government, as is well known to both countries.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in his talks with the American Government, they indicated that they would support the shipments of arms to South Africa? Would he also say whether reports that he has communicated with Heads of Government in the Commonwealth with a view to the resumed supply of arms to South Africa are true or false?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already told the House that we are in consultation with Commonwealth Governments on these matters. A full statement has been promised to the House for next week. As far as consultations are concerned, one must put a particular view to a Government before one can consult about a matter, and that is the basis on which we are working. I understand that the Opposition may wish to debate the subject. We appreciate that.

And the American view?

As for the American view, this is a matter for the American Government to state publicly.

What view has been put to the Commonwealth? Would the right hon. Gentleman answer with a "Yes" or "No"? [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you?"] I said "Yes" or "No" on all matters of this importance. Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has put a proposition to them involving the supply of arms to South Africa, in breach of the Security Council resolution?

When Her Majesty's Government have reached a decision they will inform the House, after they have carried on consultations with the Commonwealth countries. It would be improper for us, while carrying on those consulations, to announce a proposition which has been made to Commonwealth countries.

Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to restore our old friendship with Portugal, with whom our relations in the last few years have become so strained?

Portugal is our ally in N.A.T.O. and continued to be so when the Opposition were in power. We have diplomatic relations with both South Africa and Portugal so, naturally, we like to have normal relations with them.

With reference to any discussions with Commonwealth Governments, can the Prime Minister deny what was reported yesterday in reputable newspapers that the Government have announced the decision that they will resume arms sales to South Africa and then start discussions with Commonwealth countries, or are the Government having real discussions before the final decision is taken?

We are having proper discussions with the Commonwealth countries, and it is right that while we are doing so we should not state publicly the contents of communications. We shall do so when the Government have reached their conclusions. We have promised a statement to the House next week, which we shall then make.

Will my right hon. Friend take it that all of us on this side accept that when he does announce Her Majesty's Government's decision it will be one in the British national interest, which will be a departure from what we have become used to in the past?

I stated that in my statement on the Queen's Speech.

To refer to the original Question, why is the Prime Minister so reticent about visiting Cape Town to settle this disreputable deal when a previous Conservative Prime Minister, assisted by the right hon. Gentleman the present Foreign Secretary, was quite prepared to go to Munich?

The hon. Gentleman is embarrassing his right hon. Friends far more than he is embarrassing me. There is nothing disreputable about discussing with Commonwealth Governments the carrying out of obligations, which were binding on the Administration of the Labour Party when in power, but which they failed to carry out.

Did not the Government presided over by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) base their southern hemisphere strategy far more than have any Conservative Government on the South African Navy? Is it not, therefore, utter hypocrisy for them to condemn the sale of arms for naval purposes to South Africa?

Right hon. Gentlemen opposite must answer for their own hypocrisy: they had five and a half years to do so.

As the overwhelming majority of our allies in N.A.T.O., who have as much concern as we have in the security of the Cape route, and as the overwhelming majority of our partners in the Commonwealth and our potential partners in the Common Market, have declared themselves opposed to the policy which the Government proposed during the General Election, and as the South African Government have attempted to blackmail Britain by exploiting the Government's weakness to seek revision of the Simonstown Treaty totally in their own interest, will not the Prime Minister now align Her Majesty's Government with the overwhelming majority of those on whom we depend for our defence and prosperity?

We shall take our decisions on their own merits, but I well recall, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Defence and Mr. George Brown was Foreign Secretary, how they were both dished by the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Opposition sending his Chief Whip round to get hon. Members to sign a Motion against him on something which he himself wanted.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the un-satisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg leave to give notice that my right hon. Friends and I will take an early opportunity of raising the matter—and not on the Adjournment.

If I may say so, as the right hon. Gentleman has already told us that, it makes no difference.

asked the Prime Minister what communications he has received from Mr. Ian Smith; and what action he proposes to take about the settlement of the dispute with Rhodesia.

None, Sir. I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on the Address on 2nd July.—[Vol. 803, c. 81.]

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the promised talks are likely to take place before the end of this year?

I cannot give any indication when such talks are likely to start.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that any settlement of this dispute can only be one which is acceptable to all the people of Rhodesia, whatever their racial origins?

We have said that the settlement must be in the context of the five principles, and that covers that particular point.

Has the Prime Minister seen the conclusion of the United Nations Committee appointed to consider sanctions, to the effect that sanctions have not been fully effective, and have not led to the desired results, and would he and the Government in their consideration have regard to that neutral view?