asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he did not include in his circular to local authorities regarding the Housing Act, 1961, a request to give particular publicity to Sections 32 and 33 of the Act.

The purpose of the circular was to explain to local authorities how they are affected by the new Housing Act. Sections 32 and 33 are concerned with the general law of landlord and tenant.

Could not the Minister have advised local authorities to draw the attention of tenants—who, after all, are the citizens which the local authorities are supposed to serve—to their rights in this matter? Would he agree that this is one of the few good things that the Government have done about housing, and that we all want to give it publicity?

I think it highly desirable that the fullest publicity should be given. I have taken other steps. The publication of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux Committee has been broadcast, and I have drawn the attention of associations of property owners and the Law Society to these provisions. I will gladly consider other ways of publicising these sections.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he can now give details of the extent to which small local authorities affected by storm damage to housing qualify for Government assistance, and of the basis on which such assistance is assessed.

The net cost to local authorities of repairing storm damage to houses is not yet known, and so the extent to which small authorities—or any authority—may qualify for Exchequer assistance cannot yet be assessed. Each application for assistance on grounds of undue burden on the rates will be considered on its merits.

I welcome that statement from the right hon. Gentleman, but will he keep a careful watch on the situation and undertake to give the assistance he considers giving as readily and as willingly as possible?

Yes; I made that plain in my statement to the House about a fortnight ago. The burden on different authorities and the capacity of different authorities will vary. We are anxious to deal with the matter in a fair and sympathetic way when the figures are known.

At the end of his Question my hon. Friend asks about the basis on which assistance is to be assessed. Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything more precise about that than that each case will be considered on its merits?

No. I am anxious that we should look at each authority's problem, position and need on the merits.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is satisfied with the fact that out of 129,334 dwellings improved with grants in the last twelve months only 25,462 were private landlords' houses; and what steps he proposes to secure the installation of more baths, inside toilets and hot water systems, other than by further monetary incentives to landlords.

As the hon. Member may know, the number of dwellings improved with grant is now between three and four times the annual rate prior to the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959. In 1958, about 31,000 private dwellings were improved with grant. Last year, the figure was almost 86,000, and private landlords alone improved over 25,000. These results are encouraging and I see no immediate need for further measures to stimulate improvements beyond those which have been introduced in the Housing Act, 1961.

Compared with the millions of houses, that is a flea-bite. Is it not evident that the generous grants to landlords have failed, that the publicity about these grants has failed, and that bigger bribes still to landlords will equally fail? Will the Minister, therefore, consider the proposal of the men who know, the 2,000 who attended the public health inspectors' conference, their idea being that where a house is suitable it should be compulsory on the landlord to use the grant?

At this stage, no. I regard the progress which is being made as steady. I should like to see more. There are many problems involved in compulsion—the landlord's financial capacity, the tenant's financial capacity to pay increased rent, the loss of a room in adding a bathroom, and so on. The difficulties are many. I do not exclude further measures at a future time, but for the moment I want to see the result particularly of the permitted increase in rent from 8 per cent. to 12½ per cent. under the Housing Act, 1961.

Does the Minister mean that people who live in these houses without bathrooms and inside toilets are to be condemned at the pleasure of the landlord to go on living in these terrible conditions? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if these improvements were made in these houses it would probably save some of them from becoming slums in ten years' time and, therefore, save the need for the building of a large number of council houses later?

What I mean is that I want more and more improvements in privately-owned property, in landlords' property and in all kinds of property. I am not prepared at this stage to go to compulsion in order to secure that end.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he has taken to ensure that land which will become surplus to the requirements of the British Transport Commission in the Greater London area will be made available for housing.

There have been discussions between the Commission, the London County Council and my Ministry about the possible release of land not needed by the Commission for its operational requirements. Not all this land will be suitable for housing, and the appropriate use for each site can be settled only after discussion by the Commission with the London County Council and the other planning authorities.

In view of the Ministerial statements on the Transport Bill that the British Transport Commission must get the best possible price for its surplus land, is it not clear that very little of the surplus 850 acres in London will go for housing if a more lucrative development can be made? Unless the Minister is prepared to take a very strong line in this matter, was not he misleading the House on 2nd February by suggesting that a substantial part of this land would go for houses?

I agree that there are other interests. As the hon. Lady says, the British Transport Commission is interested in the possibilities of commercial development. I am interested in the use of this land for housing, as is the London County Council. There has to be a balancing of interests, but the British Transport Commission is not being allowed to lose sight of the housing need apart from its own particular point of view.

Will the Minister bear in mind the desirability of similar discussions in other cities where there is a shortage of land?

I hope that this may be a good start.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister of Welsh Affairs if, following the further rapid rise in rents and in the price of second-hand houses during the last twelve months, he will now reconsider amending the Rent Act, 1957, to stop the decontrol of houses when their tenants Change as introduced by that Act.

No, Sir.

Since creeping decontrol is affecting 320,000 houses a year, far more than the Government foresaw in 1957, does not the Minister think that this rapid rise in prices and in rents will get even worse and that, for the first time since 1915, the British people and all tenants will be faced with an almost complete absence of housing control?

What the hon. Gentleman seeks in the reimposition of rent control would only encourage even more the tendency of landlords to sell their houses rather than to allow them to be rented, which I am sure is the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Is the Minister aware that the Rent Act has completely failed to encourage the appearance on the market of privately-owned property for renting? Is he aware of the merciless exploitation which is going on under the Rent Act? Would he like to do what I did yesterday and visit the property owned by Green-coat Properties Limited in Bethnal Green and see the rents demanded from and the conditions imposed on tenants under this Act? This is quite indefensible in the twentieth century.

The Rent Act has achieved a great improvement in housing. It has made available resources for repair which otherwise would not have been available. There is no intention of going back on it.