asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has completed his discussions on 'the operation of Clause 76 of the Local Government Act, 1933; and whether he will make a statement.

These discussions are not yet finished. It may be some time before I am in a position to make a statement, but I will do so as soon as I can.

Will my right hon., Friend bear in mind the great anxiety felt on this issue in many parts of the country? Will he also realise that the uncertainty that appertains to this subject to some extent is discouraging people from going into local government?

I hope that nobody will be discouraged on this account. There are difficulties here. I do not think that they are seriously hampering local government work, but I am anxious to complete these consultations and see whether or not any further legislation is required.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many county councils in England and Wales have published definitive maps of their footpaths and bridleways as required by Part IV of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949.

Eighteen for the whole of the county and seven for part of the county.

Does not that reply show a very unsatisfactory state of affairs? Will not the Parliamentary Secretary express his concern at the undue delay on the part of those county councils which have not yet completed these definitive maps? Will he invite his right hon. Friend to exercise his powers under Section 37 of the Act to expedite the preparation of these maps?

My right hon. Friend naturally wants to see an end of this task, but it is an immense one. All counties but two have published draft maps. Twelve counties have published provisional maps. This shows that the counties are getting on with the process. Shortcuts would only throw a great deal more work on the courts or produce a lot of amendments before we reached the definitive maps. Therefore, we are just letting the process carry on.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he is taking to enable the building site at Blandford Street, St. Marylebone, belonging to the London Electricity Board, to be developed, in view of the fact that for twelve years the London County Council has refused permission to complete the building, the steel structure for which was erected approximately fifteen years ago.

This structure is the framework of a building specially designed before the war for the electricity department of the St. Marylebone Borough Council. The London Electricity Board, in which the property now vests, finds that it could not readily be adapted for its purposes and has in mind to dismantle it. I understand that a number of applications made by private developers for planning permission to develop the site have been refused by the London County Council. None of these applicants has exercised his right of appeal to me.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is really a public scandal that this site should have been unused for all these years? Is there anything that can be done to enable a building to be put up there as early as possible? Also, will my right hon. Friend ensure that when a new building is put up there is adequate garage accommodation and off-street parking facilities for cars?

I have said that the London Electricity Board is thinking of dismantling the present structure, and anybody can put an application to the London County Council for the development of the site. I do not know why those who have applied hitherto and have been refused have not exercised their right of appeal. I certainly should consider very carefully any appeal that reached me.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether any application has been made for use of the site for a multi-storey garage and whether it could be used for that purpose?

Not without notice.

asked the Minister of Housing and Looal Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will take steps to end the derating of industrial premises.

I have nothing to add to what I said on this subject in the debate on 25th February.

Is there any real reason now why industry should not pay its share? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the help that this would be to boroughs and other areas with a poor rateable value? I am thinking particularly of my own constituency of West Ham where the product of a penny irate is less than £6,000 and the rate has had to be increased by 2s. 4d. this year largely as a result of Government financial policies.

The position is that hardly anybody is paying rates at present at 100 per cent. of full current value. I explained in the debate that since the last revaluation and the rerating of industry to 50 per cent., industry is now paying nearly three times as great a share of the total rate burden as it paid before the revaluation.

May we take it that the mind of the Minister is not closed on this matter, and that he does not regard the present 50 per cent. rating as the last word?

I certainly do not think there can be any question in the present circumstances of altering the situation.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that local authorities whose educational standards are above the average are adversely affected by the system of Exchequer grants which take no account of this factor; and whether he will take steps to assist them.

It seems to me not unreasonable that a local authority which decides to provide services above the average should find the extra cost itself, rather than transfer it to the general body of taxpayers.

Does the Minister realise that the County Borough of East Ham is receiving in the current financial year about £39,000 less than was expected originally, although the Minister is paying around £9 million more over the country as a whole? Does not this illustrate the unfairness of the situation when applied to a borough with progressive educational standards but with a declining population?

The hon. Gentleman asked me a Question about declining population the other day. In fact, the general grant is devised so as to assist local authorities according to their needs, but, of course, if a particular local authority decides of its own free will to spend more heavily on a certain service than almost any other local authority in the country, inevitably it must bear the extra cost itself.

But is not the position that a local authority which provided services above the average always found a substantial part of the cost itself? The trouble now is that local authorities which did that have had by the block grant an extra penalty imposed on them which they had no reason to expect when they developed their services.

No, I do not think that is the case. It is true that under the old percentage grant system an authority which decided to spend more on a particular service could put 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the cost on to the general body of taxpayers nationally. That is no longer possible.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that the development of caravan sites on conspicuous sections on and near the East Hill, Hastings, is spoiling the natural beauty of an area of much amenity value to the Borough; and whether he will withhold approval from any application to increase the number of caravans now permitted.

My right hon. Friend understands that the Hastings County Borough Council has in recent years given permission for two caravan sites near East Hill, with certain conditions to protect the landscape. An application for extending one of these sites is now under consideration by it. My right hon. Friend cannot comment on the merits, as the case might come formally before him later on.

In accepting the need for caravan sites in these resort areas, is not my hon. Friend aware that there is really no point in having planning control while these blots on the landscape are allowed to appear? Will he press upon the local authorities the need to restrict the sites so that they are inconspicuous?

These are essentially local matters. My understanding is that the chairman and vice-chairman of the planning committee concerned are looking into the matter with some care. Arrangements have been made for the council to inform my right hon. Friend's Department before its final decision is taken.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when planning consent was given to the erection of an aluminium eagle with a wing-span of thirty-five feet on the American Embasy Building in Grosvenor Square, London.

The design approved by the London County Council included a large cartouche on the facade. It is now proposed to substitute an aluminium eagle. The planning authority is being consulted.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what on earth London will look like if all the foreign Governments represented here stick up monstrous national emblems on the buildings they occupy? Is not London already defaced and scarred by all kinds of architectural eyesores and so-called planning improvements, and has not the time come to call a halt?

This question, along with others, will no doubt be studied by the London County Council in deciding whether planning permission is or is not required for this.

Will the Minister consider the erection of an English lion and a Welsh dragon on top of the Ministry?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what development plan proposals are in being at Shearbarn Farm, Hastings, where a two-storied permanent structure is now being erected.

This is part of an area shown in the Hastings development plan as one where existing uses were largely to remain undisturbed. Since then the local planning authority has given permission, as it was entitled to do, for a caravan camp and for a recreation hall.

Since this recreation hall is two-storied, and, quite rightly, no permit would have been given for any single-storey dwelling, had this been requested, does my hon. Friend realise that this will be another structure in a very beautiful spot? In future, will he discourage local authorities from putting up permanent high structures without proper authority?

The authority concerned was perfectly within its rights in giving this planning permission, and I must repeat that this is primarily a local matter.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the average length of time elapsing between the hearing of planning and compulsory purchase inquiries and his decisions thereon for the years 1957, 1958, and 1959.

For compulsory purchase orders confirmed in 1957, 1958 and 1959, the average times were 12, 15 and 16 weeks respectively. For planning appeals I regret that I cannot give a figure for 1957, but the average in 1958 was 11 weeks and in 1959 10 weeks.

Would my right hon. friend see if this can be speeded? While recognising that there are great difficulties, since all the inquiries come to my right hon. Friend, may I ask him whether he can devise a system whereby developers get their answers a little earlier?

The Answer I have given to my hon. and learned Friend shows that as regards planning appeals we are cutting down the time, even though we are having to deal with a rapidly rising number of them. Many compulsory purchase orders are in respect of slum clearance cases, and I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will agree that those cases must be examined carefully and thoroughly in order to ensure that justice is done to all concerned.

To meet the problem of delay, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the recommendation of the Franks Committee that there should be an extension of the decision-making powers of inspectors?

Yes, Sir, I have given consideration to that recommendation, but I think it would be difficult for me to take responsibility in this House for decisions which have, in fact, been taken by my inspector without any reference to me.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that 20 acres of some of the most beautiful area on Cannock Chase are now to be subjected to quarrying under the terms of an authority granted in 1951; and, in view of the fact that this was designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty in September 1957, whether he will immediately have this permission withdrawn in view of the public concern at this spoliation of one of the most beautiful areas in Great Britain.

Planning permission for gravel working was given in 1951 by the Lichfield Rural District Council. It knew that this area was likely to be designated as of outstanding natural beauty, and it imposed suitable conditions. My right hon. Friend knows of no sufficient reason to seek to have the permission withdrawn.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will cause some dismay to many people in the Midlands, for whom there are fewer and fewer areas where they can enjoy the beauty of the countryside? Is he also aware that the option to give this quarrying right was originally given before the establishment of the present county planning authority? Is he further aware that the same planning authority has recently expressed the view in a parallel case that existing resources for quarrying material are adequate? Will he please have another look at this matter, which is rather more serious than his reply would seem to convey?

The original planning permission was for a very much larger area, and the local planning authority has now restricted gravel working to 20 acres. It is the authority's view that gravel is urgently needed. These are not wet workings and the land will be restored to its present state in due course, though at a lower level.

Does my hon. Friend realise that this is the third Question today about various beautiful parts being spoiled? I wonder whether my hon. Friend's Ministry could give a better lead in this matter.

Will the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend visit the area referred to? There is considerable concern about this, and it should be looked at again.

There must be some sort of reconciliation between national industrial interests in a matter like gravel, which has to be taken where it is found, and the interests of local inhabitants. My right hon. Friend can intervene only when he believes that these issues are not being given proper consideration by the local planning authority.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, in the hope that I can persuade the Minister to look at this matter rather more thoroughly, and since I believe that some of his information is incorrect, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

I repeat my request that hon. Members adhere to the usual formula.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he has approved development proposals for the site adjacent to William IV Street and St. Martin-in-the-Fields Church; and what views have been expressed by the Royal Fine Art Commission.

The London County Council, as local planning authority, granted permission for this development in March, 1959, after consulting the Royal Fine Art Commission. The Commission recommended that the height should be reduced by one storey, but the L.C.C. considered that this would have an adverse affect on the proportions of the building.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the published sketch plans of this building suggest that while it is not, perhaps, in the Cafe Monico category, it will be a building of little or no distinction, and totally unworthy to stand beside its uniquely beautiful neighbour? Cannot the Minister use his undoubted powers to get someting a little bit better on this very important site?

We cannot create beautiful design by Government will or decree. These are matters of judgment and the London County Council has its own architectural advisers.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether proposals to develop property in Catherine Place, Westminster, and in Buckingham Gate, have yet been referred to him, in view of the historic interest of 17 and 18 Buckingham Gate; and what observations he has made.

Yes, Sir. The London County Council consulted my right hon. Friend about alternative schemes affecting these properties. He made no comments on the proposals for Catherine Place and No. 18 Buckingham Gate, but he said that the demolition of No. 17 would in his view be regrettable, and asked the London County Council to consult him again before it came to a decision.

In view of the fact that No. 17 has been scheduled, and that my right hon. Friend has therefore an interest in it and a responsibility for it, can my hon. Friend say what steps will be taken if it is decided to proceed with the development as a whole?

We must leave this to see what is decided by the London County Council, which is considering the matter in the light of the representations being made by my hon. Friend and in the light of discussions. It will, we know, take into account my right hon. Friend's special interest in No. 17.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsih Affairs how long discussions with local authorities' associations, whidh the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) was informed on 21st November, 1957, were then in progress, had been proceeding before that date; and whether, in view of the short notice of the arrival of rockets expected from the Fylingdales early warning station, he will now indicate an approximate date for the publication of the report which it was indicated would be made on the completion of these discussions.

In answer to the first part of the Question, about a year. In answer to the second, all the issues are being re-examined, but evacuation policy has at no time depended upon warning of an actual attack.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman taken a long time—nearly three years—to give the House the details of the period of warning which will be given in the case of an alert? Surely the House may be told the up-to-date position, after this long time?

As I said, this matter is being re-examined. Over the years the strategic situation has altered and developed, and it is important that our plans should be related to the situation as it is and not to the situation as it was when this examination with the local authorities was first started.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether the Government's civil defence evacuation policy continues to be based on the evacuation of 12 million people on the outbreak of hostilities; how long a time is estimated as necessary for the completion of this operation; and what is the maximum duration of the general period of alert in a time of tension, before the final warning from the Fylingdales station, that the Government expect to be able to utilise for this purpose.

Evacuation problems are being re-examined. It is not possible to forecast the maximum length of a period of alert.

In view of the Prime Minister's recent statement that if there is another war it is likely to break out not by design but by accident, surely it is rank dishonesty to claim that a warning period will be given in respect of an alert?

These are some of the strategic considerations that I have mentioned. Hitherto our plans have been based on the expectation that a war would not break out without at least a heightening of tension.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Clean Air Act up to the present moment; what is his estimate of the further action required to make the Act fully effective; to what extent local authorities are collaborating to enforce the provisions of the Act; and how far such proposals are hampered by shortage of supplies of smokeless fuels.

The main need is for more smoke control areas in the worst polluted parts of England and Wales. My right hon. Friend has not found it necessary to defer, because of shortage of smokeless fuels, any proposals made to him.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what dates he received the documents relating to clean air sent to him by the Coal Merchants Federation and the Manchester and Stoke areas; and what advice he gave in his replies to ensure the application of his clean air policy.

My right hon. Friend first heard of these early in February, and on 16th March he told the Coal Merchants Federation in discussion that they seemed to him very undesirable. He heard about them from Manchester on 17th March, and has told them that he has made representations to the Federation; he has not heard from Stoke.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that analysts' reports, officially obtained by the Whiston Rural District Council, show that the water supplied for use in Knowsley, Lancashire, is unfit for human consumption; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

I have received no information to this effect from the Council or otherwise. But I understand that a small number of houses in Knowsley are supplied with water through old pipes which tend to cause discoloration, and that the Council is now considering new arrangements.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the trouble is that this is compensation water, supplied by a neighbouring local authority? It looks as if it will be a long time before anything can be put right. Will he arrange for the local authorities concerned to be called together to see if the matter can be speeded up?

I will certainly use my good offices, if necessary, but such information as I have leads me to think that the rural district council is pursuing this matter, and is in touch with the other authorities concerned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state which local authority is responsible for the supply of water?

The Liverpool City Council is the statutory water undertaker for the whole of the rural district, but I understand there are a few houses which, under an old arrangement, are supplied from elsewhere.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the general misunderstanding arising out of compulsory purchase orders and other acts dealing with the acquisition of land for various purposes in Bristol and other local authorities; and if he will publish a leaflet explaining in simple language the rights of owner-occupiers, land owners and local authorities.

I have heard that there has been some misunderstanding in Bristol about the effect of a slum clearance compulsory purchase order. But it has not come to my knowledge that any similar misunderstanding has arisen anywhere else, and I am sure that local authorities will supply any further explanation that is required in particular cases, as indeed I understand that the Bristol City Council is doing in this instance.

Is the Minister aware that several other Ministries issue pamphlets explaining the details of their schemes? In view of the misunderstanding that he knows exists in Bristol, will he issue a pamphlet explaining how compulsory purchase orders are initiated, the duties of local authorities under those compulsory purchase orders, and also the rights of owner-occupiers when these orders are made? Perhaps the Minister will do that.

All this is set out in the documents now. I am afraid that inevitably they are complicated and, though I want to help ordinary tenants and owners as much as possible, my concern would be lest, by trying to set out the facts too simply, I should in fact mislead somebody as to the state of the law. I think really it is best to rely on the present regulations and to encourage every local authority to accompany with its own explanation any notice it sends out.

The owner-occupier cannot go through all the regulations and Acts of Parliament. If the Minister or his Ministry could set out some of these Acts of Parliament and concessions so that people could understand them, that would be far better than the present situation.

I have a great deal of sympathy with that. At the same time, I know that the House will recognise the danger of trying to get Acts of Parliament into simple language, because one sometimes may then mislead people about what is their precise legal position.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what response he has received in answer to Circular No. 26/59 relating to colliery spoil heaps, with particular reference to agreements that have been reached between local authorities and the National Coal Board to carry out minor improvements of spoil heaps.

An agreement has been reached in respect of seven spoil heaps in Lancashire. My right hon. Friend will shortly be asking local authorities elsewhere to let him know of any progress in their areas.

Will the Minister consider going a stage further and consulting his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power and the National Coal Board with a view to using the spare machinery that is becoming available because of the rundown of opencast mining with a view to effecting more improvements?

I think that would be a consideration to bear in mind when we receive the answer to the circular that my right hon. Friend contemplates.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what actual assistance the Ministry proposes to give to local authorities in this matter? Is he aware that in many areas like Stoke-on-Trent these spoil heaps take up a very large percentage of the available land space?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question on this subject.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he refused to use his powers under Section 77 of the National Parks Act to compul-sorily acquire Dendles Moor in the Dartmoor National Park for the enjoyment of the public and the prevention of afforestation, against which he received many protests.

I have no powers to acquire land compulsorily in a National Park for preventing afforestation. I have such powers for securing public access, but in the case in question a right of way is being offered by the owners of the land, so I did not consider that compulsory acquisition on that ground was justified.

Did the Minister see the photograph in The Times of 14th March showing a prairie buster at work savaging this beautiful open moor? Will he take powers to prevent the afforestation in large measure of the National Parks?

I certainly saw that photograph. I will not make any comment on the hon. Gentleman's description of it. This is a difficult position. I understand that the owners voluntarily consulted the local planning authority about their proposals, which are outside planning control, and that in the course of those discussions a number of concessions were offered towards amenity, but I believe that those who care for the beauty of Dartmoor are not satisfied that those concessions go far enough.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he proposes to take on the application from a forestry syndicate to plough for afforestation 160 acres of Highhouse Moor in the Dartmoor National Park.

No such application is before me, since afforestation is not subject to planning control.

Will the Minister make further inquiries whether an application for ploughing Highhouse Moor is likely to be made next season by syndicates of wealthy people who can carry out this work because of the Surtax concessions they receive and thus deprive the public of the beauty of this National Park? If necessary, will he seek further powers by legislation?

I am in touch with the National Parks Commission on this whole problem. I do not think that there is any question of an application being made to me, because, as I have said, afforestation is not under planning control.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while many of us would like to see these places remain in the pristine state that we have always known them, there is a great deal to be said in favour of more afforestation in this country? Is not it unfair to suggest that forestry syndicates of this kind are necessarily anti-social and insensitive to amenities? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this syndicate has said that seven and a half acres of these woodlands can remain in their original state as a nature preserve?

My hon. Friend knows that I have been keeping in touch with this as closely as I can. I propose to have discussions with the Forestry Commission, the National Parks Commission, and others concerned about whether large-scale afforestation on these open moorlands seems likely to develop, and whether we have to look at this as a national problem. At present I must proceed under the law as it stands, and I am glad that the people who are doing this afforestation have gone some way towards meeting the criticisms that have been levelled against their activities.

Because of the Minister's unsatisfactory replies, I beg to give notice that I will raise these matters on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affair's what was the purpose of the Press conference held in Cardiff on 22nd March by an official of his Department; and whether it was held with his authority.

This conference, which was taken by an official with my authority and not by me, because it was not to do with questions of Government policy, was arranged in order to assist the Press with purely factual information about the procedures entailed when Welsh authorities need to seek major new sources of water supply.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will take powers to allow an appeal to lie to him from tenants evicted by local authorities in cases not involving arrears of rent or misbehaviour.

On the information available to me I do not think that this should be necessary.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the case of a Mr. Gower, of which I have given him notice, the Brierley Hill Urban District Council has threatened to eject him on the sole ground that he has a telephone installed in his council house for the purpose of receiving calls for his taxi business, which he carries on in another local authority area? Does not the Minister consider this unreasonable, and does not he think he should have power to prevent this?

I sent out a circular to the local authorities last year inviting them to simplify their tenancy regulations and to remove any conditions that were not eminently reasonable, but I think we must leave the management of their estates to the local authorities. In the case which my hon. Friend has mentioned, I understand that it is not simply a question of the tenant having a telephone, but of him bringing his three taxis back to the estate every night and parking them either on the road or on vacant plots in the estate.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many local authorities are not wholly operating the improvement grants.

Of the 1,468 local authorities with powers to make discretionary grants, eighty-nine have so far made none. This may include some which have never received application for a grant. The making of standard grants is, of course, mandatory on all local authorities.

If my right hon. Friend cannot alter the legislation in order to make discretionary grants compulsory, I wonder if he would consider sending a circular to local authorities impressing upon them the urgency and importance of making discretionary grants in their entirety? There are many local authorities throughout the country—my hon. Friend said eighty-nine—which do not, in effect, operate the scheme. There are many others which operate it only partially. The constituency I represent happens to be one. Does not the Minister think it extremely unfair that the public, who think that these grants are available to them, eventually do not get paid because this is within the discretion of the local authorities?

I do not think that we should make all these grants compulsory. I believe that would be impossible, however carefully one drafted the legislation, but I thoroughly agree with the general tenor of what my hon. Friend has said. I doubt whether this is the time for another circular, but in speeches I constantly make reference to the need for local authorities to exercise their powers in respect of discretionary grants, and I trust that my hon. Friend's Question will direct further attention to it.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the number of owner-occupied houses and the number of landlord-owned houses in England and Wales, and the number in each category which have been improved with grant since 1949 to 31st December. 1959.

I estimate that 5 million houses in England and Wales are owner-oooupied and that 5·9 million are owned by private landlords. The total number of private houses improved with the help of grants up to the end of 1959, was 209,921, but I cannot say how many were paid to owner-occupiers and landlords respectively. I have asked local authorities to make this distinction in their returns from the beginning of 1960.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for taking that step, but is it not also true that there are about 1 million owner-occupied and 3 million landlord-owned structurally sound houses? Further, is it not true that of the 1 million owner-occupied houses, up to the end of last year about 13·5 per cent. had improvement grants, whereas only 0·5 per cent. of the landlord-owned houses had improvement grants? Does not that show that the Minister ought to do something very much more drastic than has been done so far to persuade landlords that they have a responsibility in this matter?

I cannot confirm all the hon. Lady's figures, but I am extremely anxious that these grants should be used by landlords as well as owner-occupiers. It will be interesting to see the figures which I have now asked local authorities to let me have.

Is not the superior condition of owner-occupied houses, in many cases, a very good reason why we should never cease to try to extend the owner-occupation of private houses?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the number of owner-ocupied houses and of private landlords' houses in Salford, and the number in each category which have been improved with grant since 1949.

The total number of privately owned houses in Salford is about 43,000, and the total number improved with grant since 1949 is only 173, but I have not got the further information desired in the Question.

Perhaps I could help the Minister. Is he aware that not one private landlord in Salford has taken advantage of the 1949 Act, and only seven have taken advantage of the 1959 Act, despite the fact that 11,000 people visited the demonstration houses last July, so widespread is the mothers' longing for a house with a bath and hot water? Does not this show that the Act has failed, although it is well intentioned, and that private landlordism has also failed?

I am sorry that the experience in Salford has been disappointing. It has been much less satisfactory there than in many other cities.

Can the Minister give us some examples of cities where it has been very much more satisfactory?

There is a later Question on that point.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the number of owner-occupied houses and the number of landlord-owned houses in Stoke-on-Trent; and the number in each category which have been improved with grant since 1949 to 31st December, 1959.

The total number of privately owned houses in Stoke-on-Trent is about 59,000, and the total number improved with grant is 1,182, but I have not got the further information desired in the Question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although my authority's figures may be a little better than Salford's, the number of owner-occupied houses that have received improvement grants is about twenty times as great as the number of landlord-owned houses? Only sixty-five private landlords received improvement grants, in spite of the row of houses which were improved by the local authorities and put on exhibition. What does the right hon. Gentleman think can be done to make landlords realise their moral responsibility in this matter?

I am hoping very much to visit Stoke-on-Trent next week, and I should like to discuss with the city council a possible extension of publicity.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities deliberately discriminate against applications by landlords—[Interruption.] I repeat—many local authorities deliberately discriminate against applications by landlords and grant applications by owner-occupiers, although the houses concerned are in exactly the same condition, and even in the same street?

I am very much afraid that that is so. [Interruption.] I hope that the feeling shown in this House today in favour of a generous use of these grants will be reflected in the actions of all local authorities.

On a point of order. When a military commander or a representative of a foreign Government is attacked in this House, is it not normal for a charge made against the integrity of the person concerned to be substantiated? The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has just made a charge against the integrity of certain public bodies. Is it appropriate for him to do so without substantiating those charges?

I do not know which public authorities were referred to.

Is the position in Stoke-on-Trent better than it is in Sal-ford? If so, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not all that encouraging? Is he prepared to say which authorities discriminate in the manner alleged by his hon. Friend, and also to say how it is possible to discriminate against applications which have never been made?

I will certainly give the hon. Member any information I can in answer to a Question put down.

Does the Minister think that the moral responsibility of landlords, or the desire to effect improvements, will be considerably improved by allowing them to charge whatever premiums they like to their victimised tenants after 6th July next?

My present concern is to do everything in my power to encourage and stimulate landlords of tenanted properties to use the improvement grants system for the benefit of themselves and their tenants.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many dwelling-houses and flats were completed in Wales in 1950 and in 1959, respectively; and what is his estimate of the number to be completed in 1960.

The Answer is that 9,019 were completed in Wales in 1950, and 10,786 in 1959. I cannot yet estimate the number to be completed in 1960, but the number under construction on 1st January was nearly 700 higher than a year earlier.

In view of the remarkable amount of industrial development which Conservative prosperity is bringing to South Wales, will my right hon. Friend consider having a survey of what additional housing may be needed in parts of the areas which have benefited by this great development?

I think the local authorities are doing that. I am hoping that this development will stimulate further private enterprise building in Wales.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many areas in Wales, both rural and urban, since the withdrawal of the general housing subsidy no houses are being built at all, and that this is causing considerable hardship in these areas?

Any local authority which finds itself in difficulty can apply to me for the extra discretionary subsidy.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh affairs how many owner-occupied dwellings there were in England and Wales respectively, in 1930, 1950, and at the latest convenient date.

Information is not available in the form requested, but the number of owner-occupied dwellings has rapidly increased in recent years and in England and Wales together is estimated now to be about 5 million.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to prevent landlords demanding premiums in respect of decontrolled houses and flats after 6th July next.

I do not think there is a case for further extension.

Does that reply mean that landlords will be able to charge whatever premiums they wish in respect of properly decontrolled in July, 1957—because it was over £40 rateable value in London and £30 elsewhere—and charge whatever premiums they like on property decontrolled after that date because of new tenancies being granted?

A landlord cannot charge whatever he likes, because he may not be able to get whatever he likes. If one bans premiums permanently it may have the result only of forcing rents up higher. I doubt whether legislation against premiums would ever be so completely effective as to make it worth while as a permanent feature of legislation.

In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation restricting the right of a landlord to serve notice to quit upon a tenant within a specified interval after a freely negotiated exchange of tenancies.

I assume that the hon. Member refers to statutory tenancies. Under Section 17 of the Rent Act, 1957, statutory tenancies can be exchanged, provided the landlord and any superior landlord whose consent to an assignment would have been required are made parties to the agreement for the exchange. Each incoming tenant then remains a statutory tenant of the premises so exchanged, and has the normal protection against a landlord's claim for possession.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really understand the case on which this Question is based? The gentleman concerned was the owner and occupier of a house. He wished to sell it, but wanted somewhere to live, and advertised for an exchange. He exchanged, and once he was installed in the other person's house he gave notice to the person living in his house to quit the premises. Will the right hon. Gentleman make some observation on a practice which may be legal under the Rent Act but which is an immoral and disgraceful thing to do?

I believe the hon. Member is asking a supplementary question based on his next Question.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what request he has received from the local authority concerned to authorise the compulsory purchase of 111 Wayside, Newcastle, on its vacation by the present tenant, Mrs. Ritchards, who has received notice to quit three months after agreeing to a freely negotiated exchange of tenancies with the present landlord.

None, Sir. I understand that the notice to quit was served following damage to the property, but that it has now been withdrawn.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is quite wrong in assuming that there was any damage to the property? The notice has been withdrawn because I am raising the matter in the House today. Will he not now condemn the thoroughly disgraceful action of this landlord under the Rent Act?

No, Sir. I would advise the hon. Member to make further inquiries into what actually happened in this case. I think I probably know more about it than he does. I certainly do not think that a person should be deprived of his right to serve notice to quit if the premises which are occupied by his tenant are being damaged.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, and in view of the slander on my constituent, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will arrange for the publication of the housing revenue accounts of new town development corporations..

No, Sir.

Since the local authorities have to publish housing revenue accounts, why should not the new town development corporations do the same? It is a matter of public interest and of interest to their tenants.

In this we have been following the general line laid out by the Wilson Committee which advised us some time ago. I do not think that there is an exact parallel here, because the new town corporations are not in the same position as local authorities. They do not have the rates on which to draw. In the case of local authorities the accounts are published, presumably in order that the ratepayer may know to what extent he is, or may be, subsidising the rents of council tenants.

Surely the Minister makes a decision like that on his own judgment and does not merely follow what any Committee may have said. What is the objection to publication?

It is now about ten years since we had the benefit of the Wilson Committee which was set up to advise on the form of accounts for new towns. It did so very admirably and its Report proceeded on the principle that the various activities of a new town corporation were indivisible for accounting purposes. That has been accepted these last ten years and I think that we should stick to it.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the recent events in South Africa, he will now withdraw the invitation to the Union's Prime Minister to attend the forthcoming Commonwealth conference.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be many people not unpleased with that reply? Will he nevertheless give a further assurance that the Government will stop equivocating on this question of South Africa? Does not he think the time has now come when the Government ought to consider whether we are paying too high a price for the continued Commonwealth membership of this Nazi-like Government?

I do not accept that such wide constitutional questions arise from this Question and Answer. The Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth are invited to this conference, and among them is the Prime Minister of South Africa. By long-standing agreement internal policy is excluded from these meetings. In reference to the Question on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), which was not asked, I think we ought to take the Prime Minister's words that they agreed that

"when we have differences let us face them clearly and see them for what they are. One great advantage is that we can then recognise exactly how far they extend."

Does the right hon. Gentleman imply, by his answer, that the question of apartheid and racial controversy inside South Africa will not be discussed at the Commonwealth conference?

No, Sir, that would be a deduction which I could not accept. It is not usual for the agenda of a Commonwealth conference to be published or to reveal exactly the subjects discussed, but I would not make a deduction such as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Would not it be as well in considering African affairs if we in this country follow the principle which we hope will be followed by all races in Africa, namely, to remember that we do not promote love by stoking up the fires of hate?

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a great many people in this country would desire that, far from withdrawing the invitation, this gentleman should be actively encouraged to come here, and that while he is here he should be given every possible opportunity of seeing democracy at work?

There are obvious advantages in visits being paid either way. I think that when any of us go abroad we learn, and when visitors come to this country they learn. I think this interchange is one of the objects of such a conference. I would add that in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition I was referring particularly to private discussions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his earlier statement about equivocation with the terms of the Government Amendment on the Order Paper, in which they sympathise with the shooters and the shot? Can he, further, comment on the reports in the Press this morning that there are member Governments of the Commonwealth which have said that apartheid will be raised at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference?

I cannot comment on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's suppplementary question until I have examined the reports. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will help to draw them to my attention. With regard to the former part of his supplementary question, I have nothing to add. I do not regard the Amendment on the Order Paper as being otherwise than clear to preserve the natural position of the House of Commons, whose jurisdiction and responsibility are clearly defined; and it goes on to express deep sympathy on what has happened.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the public's uncertainty about the character of the forthcoming Commonwealth conference, he will publish the text of the invitation sent out to Commonwealth Prime Ministers, together with the text of his explanations to Commonwealth Prime Ministers on the procedure at both full and smaller meetings.

I have been asked to reply.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that both the Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya wished the subject of racial relations in South Africa to be discussed at this conference, and whether that will be permitted? Secondly, can he give this House an assurance that the Prime Minister has not promised Dr. Verwoerd, the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa, either that this matter will not be discussed, or if it is discussed, that the attitude of the British Government will be that it is an internal matter which should be outside the general sphere of discussion?

I cannot go further than is constitutionally usual in reference to what is revealed and what is not revealed in relation to a Commonwealth conference. It would not be according to precedent as carried out by the party opposite when in power or by our Governments since we have been in power. But I think that if we realise what the Prime Minister has endeavoured to do in this field we can be satisfied that there will be, as I told the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, opportunity for frank interchanges during the course of these visits.

In view of the fact that the Security Council of the United Nations may be meeting at the same time as the Commonwealth conference, would the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the Prime Minister that it would add to the prestige of the British Commonwealth as a multi-racial Commonwealth if there were a similarity of views and of voting on the part of all, or at any rate the great majority, of the Commonwealth countries at meetings of the United Nations?

It has long been clear that it is desirable there should be as much unity as possible in the Commonwealth. But it is a very wide and far-flung organisation with a great variety of views, and it takes a great deal of wisdom to carry it all together.

Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point? In answer to an earlier supplementary question, he said it was not the custom for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference to consider the internal affairs of any one country. But he also said, in answer to a supplementary question of mine, that this did not preclude them from discussing apartheid and the racial policy of the South African Government. Are we to understand, therefore, that those policies are not regarded by the British Government as the internal affairs of the South African Government?

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He will remember that immediately afterwards I used the expression that such questions would be most likely to arise in private discussions which take place. Normally, the internal affairs of a particular Government are not on the agenda of the Commonwealth conference.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of the shipping industry, he will detach the subject of shipping from the Ministry of Transport and recreate the Ministry of Shipping or associate shipping with the Ministry of Aviation.

I have been asked to reply.

Is it not obvious to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that the Minister of Transport has undertaken far too many responsibilities? He is responsible for roads and rail and now shipbuilding, which was transferred from the Admiralty, and in point of fact treats shipping—a very important subject of great national interest—in a casual fashion. Would not it be desirable, in view of the Minister's lack of knowledge about shipping, to detach this very important subject from his Ministry?

I think that my right hon. Friend would be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, in which I think there is a certain amount of sense; but at the same time we have only just made a change and I am satisfied, as is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, by the activities of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in relation to the shipping industry which I think have full approval. I think we had better let things develop as they are at the moment.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, because of the development of the hovercraft, it is desirable that the responsibilities of the Minister of Transport regarding shipping and the responsibilities of the Minister of Aviation should be associated? Already one Department has claimed the hovercraft as a ship and another Department suggests that it is an aircraft. Therefore, is not it desirable that this matter be looked at? Perhaps a happy solution would be to associate shipping and aviation?

That is a further suggestion, but I think we had better leave things as they are at the moment, including the definition of Whitehall jargon.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the view I expressed, and which is implied in my Question, represents the considered opinion of the vast majority of ship owners in this country who are dissatisfied—they have expressed their dissatisfaction in private, if not in public—with the position as it is at present and wish to have shipping considered as a special subject?

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman got quite a kindly Answer—I only asked him to be patient—and that is more than he usually gets. Therefore, I hope he will be patient in this matter.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received the resolution sent to him by the Executive Committee of the Ipswich Borough Labour Party deploring the recent massacre in the Union of South Africa arising out of the racial policy of the Union and expressing the opinion that it is the duty of the Government of the United Kingdom to make a contribution towards the relief of the victims and their dependants; and what reply he has sent or proposes to send.

I have been asked to reply.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the first part of the resolution almost certainly represents the views of the great bulk of public opinion in this country? Will the Government consider ways in which they can give effect to the second part of the resolution?

The Government have already tabled an Amendment to the Motion on the Order Paper, which I think indicates our views on this matter. The hon. and learned Member can regard that as an answer to the first part of his supplementary question. I cannot give any further answer than was given by the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations in relation to compensation. In regard to the British subjects involved, the High Commissioner has not yet sent us a full report. The only information available is that one Mosuto, who would be in our general care as a British subject, was injured. We are awaiting the report of the High Commissioner on this matter.

Before going further in emotional criticisms of South Africa in this House, would it not be better if the House could be fully informed of the facts of the situation in the Union, particularly in relation to intimidation and who in fact started the firing in the recent regrettable incidents?

The South African Government have issued their own statement and at this stage I have no other document to which to refer my hon. Friend.

Since the Government Amendment expresses sympathy with South Africa, would it not be a good plan if the Government were to give practical expression to that sympathy by contributing to a fund for the relief of the victims and their dependants?

My hon. Friend the Minister of State explained the position in this sort of case and the difficulties of so doing, but made an exception in the case of those who are British citizens. That is why I drew attention to the one casualty of which we are at present aware and upon which we are awaiting a further report from the High Commissioner.

Surely it is not usual to confine a practical expression of sympathy and a contribution to a fund to those who are British subjects in Colonial Territories? Do we not frequently make contributions to funds for the relieving of distress in other countries?

The question arises of what the right hon. Member means by "relief of distress". It is not easy to find an exact precedent for a situation of this sort which falls within the jurisdiction of another Government. That is why the spokesmen of Her Majesty's Government have deliberately confined themselves to the question of those who may be of British citizenship.