asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to further the objectives of the United Nations Development Decade.

The main objective of the Development Decade is the achievement and acceleration of sound self-sustaining economic growth in the less developed countries. This continues to be the main aim of Her Majesty's Government in this field and the reason why we have substantially increased our development assistance in recent years.

What steps are the Government taking to further the resolution passed at the last meeting of the General Assembly? Will the Government undertake to play a leading rôle in trying to make this imaginative plan a reality? In particular, will they consider raising it with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in September and seeing whether we might not have a common Commonwealth approach to this problem?

We certainly are already playing a leading rôle. As to the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, we will certainly consider what he has said. The concept of the Development Decade is one of an intensified aid effort by United Nations members through both bilateral and multilateral programmes. We already participate in various bilateral and multilateral programmes which are directed towards the aim of the Decade and we hope through these to assist less developed countries on a substantial scale.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in this most important support of the Development Decade, in the improving of the standard of living of people in certain parts of the world, he should not disregard the aid which we could give as a great livestock country in upgrading the livestock of these areas? Will he co-operate with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We will certainly bear that suggestion very much in mind.

In connection with the long-term aim of the Development Decade, will the possibility of our joining the Common Market have any repercussions on the agreements or associations that we may have with underdeveloped countries?

That we may join the Common Market is a fact which may assist us in our economic strength and will be an important factor in the future.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in the course of his negotiations on the political aspects of Her Majesty's Government's association with the European Economic Community.

The six member Governments of the European Economic Community held a further meeting in Paris on 17th April to discuss texts for a political treaty. At the meeting of Western European Union in London on 10th April I stated that we expect to be consulted before any text becomes final and I suggested to them that it might now be useful for us to join them in discussing the political structure of an enlarged European Community.

Have the right hon. Gentleman and the Government generally made up their minds about this political association? Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply indicate a loss of sovereignty by this House of Commons and the other place? Does that nebulous Answer indicate that, in addition to selling the Commonwealth down the river, the Government are selling Parliament down the river?

The Answer is far from nebulous. It is quite explicit about what has been happening, which is the question that the right hon. Gentleman asked me. It is necessary to distinguish between the negotiations in Brussels, which are concerned with the Treaty of Rome, and the separate discussions which the members of the Community have been having about constructing a new treaty concerned with the political affairs of Europe as a whole. It was to the latter that I addressed my remarks to the Western European Union, which were quite explicit about it.

Recognising that there are two sets of negotiations and that two separate treaties will be required, does not the Lord Privy Seal recall that the Prime Minister last year, when announcing the Government's decision, said that this was a purely economic negotiation? In view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why in his speech to the Western European Union he said, in effect, that the economic association would be meaningless without political union?

The Prime Minister said quite clearly—I said it myself in the same debate; indeed, I said it in the first debate on the matter in the House on 17th May of last year—that the Treaty of Rome is an economic treaty. I pointed out also that it has political implications. [Interruption.] This has never been disguised from the House or the country. Indeed, after the declaration at Bonn in July this was also mentioned in the debate in the House. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed the possible developments in Europe of confederation and federation and explained Her Majesty's Government's views about them.

Has my right hon. Friend had a reply to his request? If not, does he anticipate one?

The Ministers of the European Economic Community have not met again since 17th April. Therefore, there has not been the opportunity for them to deal with it. It was a suggestion that I made. It was not a request. I have no doubt at all that the suggestion will be acknowledged and answered.

As the political implications and the negotiations associated with those implications may have very grave repercussions on this assembly and the sovereignty of this Parliament, may we have an assurance from the Lord Privy Seal here and now that he will make frequent progress reports to the House so that we can express our opinions on the subject?

The Government are bound by the Resolution of the House of Commons of 3rd August, which dealt fully with sovereignty. The undertaking was given in that Resolution. I am always delighted to give information fully to the House on every possible occasion, but sometimes there appears to be too much for the House to assimilate.

Will my right hon. Friend clear up one uncertainty to which his answers have given rise now? Is he drawing a distinction between Western European Union and the Fouchet Commission? Are we to take it that what he has suggested to Western European Union is passed on simultaneously to members of the Fouchet Commission?

The Fouchet Commission, which has now become the Cattani Commission as a result of the change of chairmanship, is formed of members of the European Economic Community. We are not a member of the Community. Therefore, we are not a member of the Cattani Commission. I took the opportunity of the Western European Union meeting, in which the six governments are represented in addition to ourselves, to express our views about the European political developments.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us feel that a very important consideration involved in our acceptance of the Rome Treaty would be the constitutional changes Which would be necessary in British law and machinery of government if we accepted? Therefore, would the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, before the negotiations which are taking place on our entry into the Common Market are finalised, he will come forward and explain to the House exactly what these constitutional changes will mean to the country and to the Commonwealth?

Yes. We are bound to do that by the Resolution of the House of Commons of last August. Of course, we shall take the opportunity of fully explaining all the implications of any steps which we are proposing.

Is not the Lord Privy Seal aware that the Resolution carried by the House on a Division related purely to negotiations for economic association under the Treaty of Rome, with such derogations of sovereignty as are required by the Treaty of Rome? That was all that it carried. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when he or any other Minister came to the House for a mandate to embark on political negotiations which, as he has said, is an entirely separate matter leading to a separate treaty? At what stage has he or any other Minister reported to the House that this was their policy? When has he sought a Resolution of the House of Commons to empower him to undertake those negotiations?

It was made perfectly plain in the debates in the House of Commons in August that these developments were taking place. Again on 17th May I explained the political discussions which were taking place amongst the Ministers of the Six and the political consultation which was developing. Therefore, it was necessary for us to consider entering into those negotiations. That has always been made quite clear from the beginning. As these matters proceed I am only too happy to report them to the House.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government supported the proposal put forward at Geneva by the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, that all the members of the disarmament conference should make a formal declaration with the object of ensuring that outer space should be used for peaceful purposes only; and if he will make a statement.

On 27th March at Geneva my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary said that Her Majesty's Government were in full agreement with the general purpose of the Canadian proposal.

While we welcome that statement by the Lord Privy Seal, can he say whether this proposal is not highly relevant to the latest American announcement of high-altitude tests? Since this proposal was welcomed at Geneva, will he make representations to the American Administration in the light of the protests yesterday by eminent scientists like Sir Bernard Lovell?

The Western Powers have made it quite plain that they are prepared to discuss this Canadian proposal. Unfortunately, the Soviet delegate at Geneva has refused to allow a discussion.

Can the Lord Privy Seal tell us why we are in favour of this, since if we are to have tests at all, and we are told that tests poison the atmosphere, is there not a case for having them out of the atmosphere, particularly as if they are out of the atmosphere they are of danger only to rockets which are also out of the atmosphere and the fall-out by the time it gets here is less radioactive than a luminous watch?

These are part of the proposals concerned with general and complete disarmament. It is also the policy of Her Majesty's Government to obtain a proper testing agreement.

Can the right hon. Gentleman answer my supplementary question? He evaded it completely. Will he make approaches to the American Administration about these high-altitude tests, in view of the support which he has announced for the Canadian proposal?

No. Her Majesty's Government's position in relation to the American tests is perfectly well known.

No, it is not.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps have been taken to supply delegates at Geneva with up-to-date information on the detection and identification of nuclear tests; whether this information includes reports on the immediate identification in the United States of the Soviet underground test of 2nd February, and on "Project Gnome," a small underground test conducted in the United States, in conditions supposed to muffle and conceal such explosions, which was nevertheless recorded and identified in Finland and Japan; and if, for the information of hon. Members, he will obtain and place in the Library of the House the first report on this test, already published, and others as they become available.

Delegates at Geneva have access to extensive documentation on the possibility of detecting and identifying all nuclear tests, resulting from over three years of negotiation.

Both the Soviet underground test of 2nd February and the "Project Gnome" explosion, which was carried out in conditions not entirely corresponding to the hon. Gentleman's description, have been the subject of discussion at Geneva.

The first report on the "Project Gnome" explosion is unclassified. It is available in Geneva and I will arrange for a copy of it to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible. Whether subsequent reports on it can be placed in the Library will depend on their security classification.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say in what respect the report of "Project Gnome" does not correspond with the necessarily brief summary of it in this Question? Could he also say whether he has read this report? If not, will he do so? If he has read it, does he agree that it makes nonsense of most of the theories of Dr. Teller?

I cannot agree with the view the hon. Gentleman expressed in the last part of his supplementary question. Where I think his Question makes an implication from which I differ is that the fact that these tests were being carried out was known in advance and publicised. Therefore, it is not the same as if they took place suddenly or spontaneously and people had to detect them.

Since the Soviet Government claim that all tests can now be verified from outside the country where they take place, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Soviet scientists to be confronted by ours and challenged to give a list of all the American explosions which have occurred, whether those which have been announced or those which have not been announced? Then we can see whether they have in fact been able to detect all the American explosions. As the deadlock in Geneva revolves on that issue, would it not be a good idea to press the Russians on this matter?

We have already suggested at Geneva that there should be a further meeting of the Western and Russian scientists in order that the Russian scientists could place their information before our own scientists and compare notes to see whether the Russian claims can be maintained. We have pressed that as hard as we can.

Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether any progress has been made at the test ban conference since the Prime Minister made his statement on 17th April? Could he also take this opportunity of clarifying the neutrals' proposals with regard to international verification? Are they consistent with a mandatory obligation? Could they be consistent with what is called an invitational undertaking? If so, can he say whether the Soviet delegation has clarified its position with regard to each of these interpretations of the neutrals' proposals?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question contains a very large number of questions. As I understand it, no further progress has been made in that part of the conference at Geneva, although there was, of course, a recess for part of the time—over Easter. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will put down his remaining questions I will try to secure an answer in detail for him. There are important points about their proposals still to be clarified by the neutrals, and the Soviet representative has so far refused to specify an answer to the question as to whether or not he would accept verification.

Can my right hon. Friend say what answer has been received to the suggestion that Western scientists and Soviet scientists should meet?

Yes, Sir. The Soviet representative has not been able to agree to that.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations the Government have received from the United Nations Association or any of its branches urging the holding of an impartial inquiry into allegations of atrocities during United Nations hostilities against Katanga.

A suggestion that an inquiry should be held into allegations against United Nations troops was received from the United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in October, 1961.

What has resulted from those very welcome representations from the United Nations Association?

The troops primarily concerned at the time were those of the Indian contingent. The public statement of 27th September pointed out that we had no evidence to support the allegations that were being made at the time and that we were unwilling to give credence to those allegations, and we informed the United Nations Association that we therefore could not undertake to seek such an inquiry.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in the investigations which the United Nations have been conducting into the allegations of misbehaviour by United Nations troops in Katanga, including the indiscriminate motar bombardment of hospitals and the killing, raping and assaulting of non-combatants.

The results of investigations made by certain United Nations units into charges of improper conduct by their troops have not been published. I am informed, however, that those found guilty of such conduct have been punished.

Will my hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government press for full publication of and full publicity for the results of these investigations? Moreover, has my hon. Friend studied the very full and disturbing report by a noble Lord in another place who has great experience of sifting this kind of allegation? May I ask for an assurance from the Government that they will not lend countenance to the use of United Nations troops for any further police or military action in Katanga until some satisfaction has been secured in regard to those allegations?

As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I do not think that any purpose would be served by the publication of and full publicity for the details of these reports for which he asks. As to the other part of his supplementary question, I am, of course, aware of the report by the noble Lord whom he mentioned.

While giving every weight to the representations from the United Nations Association, as suggested in a previous Question, may I ask the the Minister to assure the House that he will not accept suggestions or campaigns by back benchers aimed at discrediting and undermining the United Nations?

I think that the House appreciates that there have been many and conflicting allegations coming out of this area; allegations of great brutality committed by both sides and, indeed, by people not officially connected with either side. It is difficult to sift this evidence, but I am informed that where allegations have been made against United Nations' troops those allegations have been investigated and where they have been proved the people responsible have been punished.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is the very fact that the truth is not allowed to come out that has disgraced the United Nations in the eyes of this country and of the civilised world?

asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has received from the United States Government concerning the resumption of talks between that Government and the Soviet Government on Berlin.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the prospects of a negotiated agreement on the Berlin situation.

The United States Secretary of State has had further discussions with the Soviet Ambassador in Washington, and Her Majesty's Government are being kept fully informed. The discussions are still in the exploratory stage and are likely to continue when the United States Secretary of State returns to Washington.

Will the Lord Privy Seal say whether the reported American proposals have the support of the German Government? Will he take special steps to make quite clear to the German Government that in this country, where we carry a heavy burden in regard to Berlin, there is very wide support for the American proposals?

Yes, Sir. The German Government issued a statement to say that they had complete confidence in the way in which the Secretary of State of the United States was handling these talks.

Has my right hon. Friend nothing to report about access to Berlin? Has the proposal for an international access authority been dropped? Has it been made clear to the Soviet Government that nothing could so improve relations between the Soviet and the West as some assurance that access to Berlin would be guaranteed by international authority?

The latter fact has been made abundantly clear to the Soviet Union on a very large number of occasions. I told the House on an earlier occasion that Her Majesty's Government were in agreement with the various proposals being discussed by the American Secretary of State with the Soviet Ambassador but, of course, the House will recognise that I cannot go further in public about the particular details of those proposals.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has now been made towards a settlement in Laos.

There have been no significant developments since my hon. Friend's reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr P. Noel-Baker) on 26th March.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, meantime, the chances of a successful coalition Government have become less? Is it not time to put plainly to General Phoumi that, although there are dangers in forming this coalition Government, this alternative policy is a suicidal one Which will not get any support from the Western countries?

The position is that the conference at Geneva about Laos has got as far as it can until there is a unified Loatian delegation present to confirm the arrangements being made there. We have done our utmost to impress on the three princes the need to form this Government of national union, and have made it quite plain to General Phoumi, in addition to Prince Boun Oum and Prince Souvanna Phouma. I would not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the chances of getting agreement are receding. I am hopeful that there are now signs that agreement may be possible.

Will the Lord Privy Seal say whether Prince Boun Oum and General Phoumi have carried out the undertaking they gave at the end of the Geneva conference about the constitution of the Government?

I think that what one can say is quite plain. The three princes have not yet succeeded in forming a Government together, but I should not like to apportion blame between the individuals concerned.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will protest to the Icelandic Government on the arrest of the m.t. "Ben Lui" for alleged illegal fishing, despite evidence given by the skipper and advisory skipper of the "Ben Lui" and officers of H.M.S. "Russell" that the trawler was outside the fishing limits line.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that on or about 19th April Icelandic authorities stopped and arrested off Iceland the Aberdeen trawler "Ben Lui"; if he will give details of this episode; if he will set up an authoritative commission of inquiry into it; and if he will take steps to prevent a repetition of such occurrences in future.

The trawler was arrested on 18th April. Officers of the fishery protection ship H.M.S. "Russell", who came to the scene of the arrest and took position fixes, gave evidence on the trawler skipper's behalf in court proceedings which began the same day. On 23rd April, the trawler was convicted of illegal fishing and fined£2,200, plus costs and forfeiture of her catch and gear. A financial guarantee was placed to cover the sums involved, and the owners have appealed against the verdict. The case is, therefore, still before the Icelandic courts and a commission of inquiry would not be appropriate. Nor would it be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to take any action at this stage, although we shall naturally keep a close watch on the case.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this appeal may not be heard for six or nine months? In view of the conclusive evidence given by our own fishery protection vessel that our own ship was outside Icelandic territorial waters and, therefore, not subject to Icelandic jurisdiction, does he not agree that this case will cause very great concern, not only to skippers sailing from the port of Aberdeen but to all skippers sailing from all ports and fishing near Icelandic waters? Therefore, as my hon. Friend is answering this Question together with that put down by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) who, unfortunately, is ill, and as both hon. Members for Aberdeen feel unanimously on this subject, does my hon. Friend not think that, in those circumstances, either a protest should be made or a commission of inquiry established as, indeed, occurred in the "Red Crusader" incident?

Regarding the first part of that supplementary question, I certainly hope that the appeal will be heard sooner than my hon. Friend suggests. It is, of course, a very important case and I certainly accept that great concern is felt about the facts that I mentioned. I still think that, although the points my hon. Friend mentioned are important, it would be premature for me to comment on them pending the outcome of the appeal in the Icelandic courts.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the port of North Shields is interested in this case? I do not think that my hon. Friend's Answer was at all satisfactory. Will he kindly explain whether he has already made representations to the Icelandic Government against the treatment of the evidence that was given by the fishery protection vessel? Are we not Great Britain? Are we not entitled to have our evidence properly treated and proper consideration given to it? Cannot my hon. Friend stand up for Great Britain and our rights and not be quite so satisfied with the answers that have been given and which, I think, are not at all satisfactory?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we will certainly stand up for Great Britain and the fishing trawlers in this particular matter. I just suggested that we must bide our time until the outcome of the appeal. As soon as the appeal is known, I can assure my hon. Friend that we will make the fullest possible submissions to the Icelandic Government, should they be necessary.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not good enough for the Foreign Office merely to say that we must wait for the outcome of the appeal? The House would like to know what steps the Foreign Office is taking to support the case of this particular vessel. Since on the two previous occasions it was found in the Court of Appeal that the offending Government was wrong—and in the most recent case of the "Red Crusader" that the British vessel was in the right—may I ask what steps his Department is taking to prevent incidents of this kind from arising? Will he persuade the Icelandic Government to do something?

Regarding the "Red Crusader", it would be wrong to say that it was found that the British vessel had been entirely in the right. Fault was found on both sides. Regarding the Foreign Office, our representative in Iceland is giving every possible assistance to the owners in the presentation of this case.

I beg to give notice that on Friday, 11th May, I shall call attention to the problems of transport in rural areas, and move a Resolution.

I beg to give notice that on Friday, 11th May, I shall call attention to the need to widen the range of industrial diseases covered by existing legislation in order to include partial deafness, arthritis and other diseases acquired at work, and move a Resolution.

I beg to give notice that on Friday, 11th May, I shall call attention to the inadequacy of provision for apprenticeships and technical training, and move a Resolution.

The Votes before us will enable hon. Members to discuss a wide range of topics, but I propose to concentrate on two, housing and local authority finance, and of those, as I think is right, I shall give pre-eminence to housing. We are, of course, concerned today with the affairs of England and Wales only. In Scotland, the citizens are already engaged in passing a verdict on Conservative housing and local government policies, a verdict which, no doubt, the Committee will take into consideration.

It is reasonable now, after more than ten years of Conservative government, to review the nature and general effects of Conservative policy towards housing. We notice, first, that it is not a policy based on any consideration of real needs, but a policy based on an ideology, on the belief that one should seek continually to discourage public enterprise in the provision of housing and act in the faith and hope that private enterprise will somehow provide an answer to our problems. To that view the Tories have stuck year after year in the face of mounting evidence that they were not travelling along the right road.

The objectives which the Government and their supporters had in mind in pursuing their policy were, I think, these. First, they sought to make owner-occupation more attractive. In this, they have failed. It is not that owner-occupation is decreasing. It is, indeed, increasing. But this is not because it has been made easier or more attractive, but because other aspects of Conservative policy have made owner-occupation obligatory on a growing number of people, often against what would in other circumstances have been their better judgment.

If owner-occupation is a good thing to encourage, as it is, it is a bad thing to thrust down people's throats. In their aim of making it easier or more attractive, the Government have failed. We must note also that, whatever one succeeds or fails to do in this connection, owner-occupation still cannot be the answer to the housing problems of a very large number of people.

Another of their objectives was to encourage the private landlord to build houses for rent. In this, they have notoriously failed. Next, it was their objective to encourage the private landlord if not to build for rent at least to make more of existing accommodation available for letting at reasonable rents. In this objective, also, they have failed. They sought also to encourage the private landlord to fulfil more adequately his responsibility to care for the condition of property. In this, too, they have failed.

Their next objective was to discourage, save in the single case of one-bedroom dwellings, council building. Here, at last, we reach an objective in which they have succeeded, although even success in the provision of an increasing number of one-bedroom dwellings intended mainly for elderly people can be regarded as such only in comparison with the discouragement of municipal building of almost every other kind. We were told that this discouragement of the provision of houses for general needs was part of a policy—this was their last objective—designed to give us a slum clearance drive adequate to the size of the slum problem. In this also they have failed.

I take, first, owner-occupation. It must be apparent to anyone who studies the problem that recent trends in this connection have been extremely disquieting. If the movement of house prices which has gone on during the past few years is continued, it will become increasingly difficult for young couples to set themselves up in what they hope will one day be their own house. Let us consider what has been happening to the prices of houses. I take, first, an example which was given some publicity in the Press, a house in Hendon which, before the war, cost£900. By 1951, it was changing hands for£3,275.

When one considers what had happened to prices and incomes in general and the value of money during the intervening period, that may not be unreasonable. However, after reaching the figure of£3,275 in 1951, the price had gone up to£4,200 in 1960. That is a rise of about one-third. That this is not an isolated example is shown by the Ministry of Works index number for the price of new houses. Taking 1956 as 100, in 1961 that index number stood at 122, a rise of nearly a quarter in five years.

What are the causes of this rise in the price of new houses? We are very familiar with them after a number of debates. One is the increasing rise in the price of the land on which houses are built. The Chairman of the Building Societies Association recently estimated that it is not uncommon for the cost of the land to be 40 per cent. of the cost of a new dwelling. I do not think that anyone can contend that that is a healthy situation.

The other main cause is the high interest rates which spring from the Government's general policy. We have usually discussed that evil in the context of its effect on municipal building, but it also affects owner-occupiers. It is the cause of the letters which the person buying his house receives from time to time informing him regretfully that it will take him longer and will cost him more to complete the transaction than he had hoped when he started.

Those are the two main causes of this rise in the price of new houses. What is the result? For that, we can consult a recent survey made by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research. The cost of a new two-bedroom dwelling was examined. Figures for dwellings of other sizes were given, but I take a two-bedroom dwelling, which is the most modest accommodation that a young family would be expected to require. To acquire a new two-bedroom dwelling by purchase would involve the payment of about£5 a week.

If we assume that a man should be expected to spend a quarter of his income on house room, what result do we get? I think that the calculation that a man should be required to spend a quarter of his income on house room errs on the high side. I should have thought that one-fifth was plenty. When we considered these matters before the war we did not think in terms of a proportion as high as that. However, let me take that figure. Let us assume that we have moved into a state of society in which people should spend a quarter of their income on house room and set that against the cost of acquiring by purchase a new two-bedroom dwelling.

The answer that we get is that only about one family in eight can hope to do it. That is why I say that, judging by the way things have been moving, owner-occupation is not being made easier. It certainly cannot be regarded as an answer to the housing problem of more than a small minority of the population.

Not only can only one family in eight be reasonably expected to buy a two-bedroom dwelling, but only about one-third of the population could afford to rent such a dwelling unless it was subsidised. That is the situation in which we find ourselves. The great majority of the population cannot afford to buy or to rent a new house without a subsidy or some kind of outside aid. That is on the basis of a two-bedroom dwelling. Many families will require larger accommodation than that.

We know that some people meet the problem by spending, in effect, more than it is really wise for them to spend on house room. One effect of the Rent Act has been to drive a number of people into owner-occupation which eats a larger hole in their income than is socially or personally desirable. This is not something which applies only to new houses. It also applies if people are considering buying existing properties.

I am indebted to Councillor Russell, of Romford, for a study which he made of houses advertised in the Romford, Dagenham and Hornchurch newspapers. It was the Minister's predecessor who advised us to go to the advertisement columns of the newspapers for evidence of the success of the Government's housing policy. Councillor Russell found that of the houses advertised only one in seven cost less than£3,000. Among that one-seventh were houses built even before 1914. What proportion of potential buyers could afford houses priced at above that figure? Probably, again, only one-seventh of the potential buyers. Six-sevenths would be competing for one-seventh of the houses offered for sale.

When people think of becoming owner-occupiers, they look for help to a building society or to a local authority, but one of the results of the Government's financial policy towards local authorities has been to oblige one council after another regretfully to decide that it must suspend its service of help to house purchasers. Therefore, while we may hope that there will be families who will be able to solve their housing problem in this way, we must face the fact that it will be increasingly difficult for them to do so and that, in any case, it does not touch the main housing problem.

Let me now deal with the next objective of Government policy, namely, to encourage private landlords—by higher rents, by improvement grants and by this, that and the other—to fulfil the duties which should belong to a private landlord. Let us see what has become of that. What was the private landlord supposed to do as the result of the sunshine of Conservative government pouring down upon him? He was supposed to build new houses for rent. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us to what extent he does that. There was a calculation, I think, in the Guardian, some time ago, that not 2 per cent. of new houses built by private enterprise were built for rent. It is a generally known fact that we do not look to this source for houses for rent.

When we have raised this point we have usually been told that the reason why the private landlord will not build houses for rent is that he is terrified of what a future Labour Government would do to him. Will the private landlord build houses for rent only if he can have an assurance that everyone will vote Conservative until the end of time? If that is what he wants, as one looks round the country at the moment, it does not look as if he will have such an assurance. In view of that, the Government had better reconsider their faith in the ability of private landlords to build houses for rent.

Secondly, the private landlord will not build houses either to rent or to sell in those places where the need is greatest. I take some comparisons from figures published by the Minister. First, let me deal with two towns each of which has a population of 50,000. In Harrogate, private enterprise has built 2,800 houses and in Merthyr Tydvil 250. I think that probably the need is greater in Merthyr Tydvil than it is in Harrogate. In two towns each with a population of 100,000, Twickenham and Gateshead, private enterprise has built 2,400 and 600 houses respectively. This only emphasises something which was brought out in a Ministry inquiry some time ago, when attention was drawn to the fact that private building was done generally in the more attractive parts of the country and not in those parts where the need was greatest.

Quite apart from building, the private landlord has not come up to the Government's expectations and the faith in him in the task of making existing accommodation available for letting. The great instrument of the Government's policy to this end was the Rent Act. It was this, we were told, which would encourage private landlords to make more accommodation available for rent. A former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry was bold enough to suggest that after a year of operation of the Rent Act the housing problem would be solved in many parts of the country. He has now received promotion.

With the Government's help, we are able to see how far that has been successful, because in 1960 the Government published the results of an inquiry into the effects of the Rent Act. It showed, among other things, that the Government's calculations about how many houses would be affected, either by the initial decontrol or by creeping decontrol, were wildly inaccurate. For the moment, however, I leave that aside. My concern is that from that inquiry we find what had happened by 1959 to the 320,000 dwellings examined by the Government which were rented unfurnished in 1957 and were decontrolled under the 1957 Act.

We find that, of those 320,000 dwellings, by 1959 one-quarter of them were no longer rented unfurnished; they had vanished from that market. One-eighth of them had become owner-occupied. This is the kind of owner-occupation, not always in very happy circumstances, that this item of policy has encouraged. One in twelve of the houses were standing empty, presumably because the landlord thought that, if he waited a bit longer, in the conditions of the market he would be able to do very well indeed, a hope which is quite often fulfilled.

It is evident from the information provided by the Government that the Rent Act has not brought more rented accommodation on to the market at reasonable rents. It has, I believe, brought some kinds of rented accommodation on to the market. I read recently an account by a student of these problems who had visited certain conversions that were being carried on in the neighbourhood of Sloane Square—tiny dwellings which were to be available for rent, but very unsatisfactory to live in. When he pointed out their undesirability, he was told, "Well, we do not regard these really as homes. These are pied-à-terre for people who have homes elsewhere". I agree that the Rent Act may be helping to bring that kind of rented accommodation on to the market, but it has no relevance to the housing needs of our people.

Next, the Rent Act has not remedied under-occupation. The Ministry's sur- vey told us that, if anything, under-occupation has slightly increased since the Act was passed. It has actually increased the number of properties standing vacant and, of course, it has made it easier for the landlord to neglect the property. Take the position of the landlord whose tenant is in the house on a tenancy of, if he is lucky, three years, and often two years or twelve months. The house is notoriously in need of repair. It may even call for action by the public health authority. The tenant knows very well that if he requires the landlord to do what he ought to do under the lease, or if he invokes the public health authority, his chances of getting his agreement renewed are slender indeed.

What the Government succeeded in doing is putting the landlord in so strong a bargaining position that it is remarkably easy for him simply to drop his obligation to care for the property and to hope that the tenant, if he is an active and diligent person, will do the job himself. But what if the tenant is not active? What if age or infirmity prevents him from using ladders and paint himself and doing the landlord's job? What becomes of the property then? Those are the results of the Government's convictions that if they encouraged the private landlord sufficiently, the problem would be solved.

In what I have said I have used the expression "the private landlord" as if all private landlords were of a class. That I must correct. They are not. They vary a great deal in their humanity and in their sense of responsibility. What the Government have succeeded in doing, however, is creating a kind of society in which the good private landlord, the man who wants to fulfil his responsibilities, looks round at what the others are doing and decides that virtue and responsibility are a mug's game in the kind of society that the Government have created.

Of the number of people who come to me with housing problems, who are tenants of private landlords, who are being asked for exorbitant rents, whose repairs are being neglected and who are told that when their agreement runs out in six months' time out they go, what impresses me is the number of times they tell me that the property has changed hands on two, three or four occasions since the Rent Act was passed.

I have sometimes interviewed former landlords who sold the property believing that their tenants would be justly and humanely treated and who are deeply distressed at what has happened after the property has changed hands. The general drive in landlordism today is to encourage the landlord who regards the house as something to bring him in an income and nothing else and to discourage the one who has a sense of responsibility, is content with a reasonable rent and is prepared to keep the property in proper repair. That is the situation today.

We are moving towards a position in which only one family in eight will be able to think of buying a new house and only one family in three can, unless they put an undue burden on themselves, even rent a new dwelling unless it is subsidised. For not new dwellings, but existing properties, the level of rents is now such that the majority of our people cannot unaided solve their own housing problem. Many of them solve it by living for as far ahead as they can see in accommodation that is patently too small for them.

The moral of that is an important social and political one. It is that we have to accept the idea that housing should be regarded, as education is regarded, as a social service. Education is by its nature 100 per cent. subsidised. Nobody would suggest that housing should be treated in that way. We have, however, to say to ourselves that for a man to be ill-housed is an evil, not only to him, but for the whole community, and that for a man to be well-housed is an advantage, not only to his family, but to the whole community in which he lives, and that, therefore, this is a proper subject for some kind of subsidy, arranged through whatever channel or called by whatever name one wishes. The idea that we can solve the problem as a whole by reliance solely on private enterprise and the forces of the market is being repeatedly disproved. The rising figures of house prices and rents are disproving it all the time.

We have already accepted that principle in certain directions. We accept the idea of helping, in effect, from the public purse the owner-occupier. We do that by the Income Tax rebate which he can get on his mortgage repayments. It is proposed to do it by the treatment of the Schedule A tax. Those are right developments. They recognise the principle which I have enunciated, that if a man desres to have a good home for himself and his family, that is, like educating his children, something in which he ought to be helped by the community as a whole. We recognise it also in the case of the council tenant who pays less, though not always so very much less, than the economic rent. We recognise, again, that in his case for him to be well housed is a social advantage and that the cost of it should, therefore, be partly met by subsidy.

There remains the group for whom we have refused to recognise this principle, the tenants of the private landlords, and it is for that reason that more and more of the sharpest edges of the housing shortage and the housing problem are driving in upon them, and that is why it is wrong for the Government to regard private landlordism as the main way of solving the housing problem. Indeed, of the various ways of solving it it has become inevitably the least satisfactory.

I can think of one other possible approach to the housing problem other than that general idea I have just enunciated, and that is this. Could we not consider whether the technical cost of building houses could be substantially brought down so that, therefore, the cost of a good home could be brought within the reach of all our citizens without the need of subsidy? I do not think that that is a matter to which we have given in our debates sufficient attention, and perhaps the Minister will have something to say about that.

It is true that recently, during, I think, about the last twelve or eighteen months, there have been improvements in the productivity of the building industry, but it is a slow process, and I do not think it can be expected to continue for long at the rather exceptional rate of improvement of the last twelve or eighteen months. It will be a big problem. It will need the co-operation of the trade unions with regard to methods of building and what kind of worker is appropriate for what kind of job. It will need the consideration of this question: can we really build properly and efficiently when so many firms in the industry are such tiny firms?

It will need also, I think, consideration of whether we could not make better progress if it were a more usual habit of local authorities to join together in the giving of orders for the purchase of materials. The Minister will find, though he will not like this, that a number of local authorities who have done the work by direct labour have done it very economically indeed. In considering the matter he should not, for ideological reasons, rule that out.

A number of years ago, under the initiative of George Tomlinson, we made quite remarkable improvements in the cost of building of schools. Some people thought—and I think that I would agree with them—that perhaps we went a bit too far there and skimped on the buildings, but it would not be denied that many of the economies made as a result of that inquiry were real economies and got us something as good for substantially less money. I find it difficult to believe that something of what was done there could not be done in house building, and I think that it is up to the Ministry to take an initiative in this field; and if the Ministry does not like the idea of housing subsidies it must recognise that this is really the only other possible road, unless it is to be prepared to see millions of our people going on being ill-housed for years.

Whatever is done in improving the techniques of the building industry is bound to be a slow remedy which could not yield fruits quickly. It will be true, therefore, for a good many years that the bulk of our citizens cannot, without some kind of subsidy or public help, be housed as, viewing the whole wealth of the country and the standards of civilisation which we expect, they ought to be housed at the present time.

Now, subsidised housing means council housing, and that means, therefore, that unless and until we can produce very substantial reductions in building costs—and we do not know at all how much progress can be made in that field till we have examined the question further—but unless and until we can do that, if we hope to solve the housing problems of many of our people we have got to have more council houses, and there is really no escape from that conclusion. Yet this is the one field in the whole range of housing in which the Government have succeeded—in cutting down the number of council houses built.

We know the causes of that decline and the amount of it, roughly 100,000 houses built in England and Wales in 1960, slightly more than 90,000 in 1961. It is too early to judge yet what the outturn at the end of this year will be. My guess would be that it will lie somewhere between those two figures for 1960 and 1961.

What are the causes of that decline? They are mainly those I mentioned when I was speaking of the costs of houses for sale—land prices. If the Government are not prepared to do anything to control land prices, or to bring land into public ownership, will they at least do a little more to try to spread industry, and, therefore, the demand for land, rather more evenly over the country? That has been urged on them from many parts of the House in the past. We have never had any clear statement of the Government's intentions in this field, but if they go on as they are now in certain parts of the country the rises in the price of land we have been having in the last few years will look tiny compared with what will happen in the next few years.

As I say, if the Government will not tackle the problem of the ownership and price of land they should at least consider the influence which location of industry has on the demand for land, because the shortage of land, of course, is not a shortage over the country as a whole. It is a shortage in certain regions, tied up with the flow of employment to certain regions.

The other cause of the decline is the burden of interest rates which hangs round the necks of local authorities and troubles them not only in carrying out their housing programmes, but in performing all their other duties which Parliament lays upon them. Here again, we know that it is idle to ask the Minister to make money available to local authorities at favoured rates of interest. When he went into office somebody handed him a little chit of paper which no doubt his predecessor had had and which contained the stock answer to that one. It is, "You must not shield housing from the economic situation of the country. You must not regard housing as in any way more important than any other kind of enterprise." Which is, in my view, an imbecile proposition. But we know that the Minister has got to stick to it.

But will he, at least, since he cannot solve the real problem, look at this? Local authorities are still excluded from the Public Works Loan Board. Last year, I think, only about 7 per cent. of their borrowing was from the Board. The result is that they compete with one another in the open market and that, I believe, is one reason why they are having to pay the rates they are. Would the Minister at least consider reopening to them the facilities of the Public Works Loan Board, so creating some kind of centralised agency which could do the borrowing for the local authorities as a whole, and put an end to the inter-authority competition, which is one of the causes of the high rates of interest they have to pay?

Those are, I think, the causes of the decline in council building. As to the results, I mentioned that, in 1961, 93,000 houses were built in England and Wales. Of those, 24,000 were one-bedroom dwellings, and that is gratifying when one thinks of the number of old people who will be helped in that way, but it means this, that 69,000 council houses were built for people who require more than one bedroom, and in that same year slum clearance and other causes of demolition pulled down 74,000 houses, and we were left at the end with 5,000 fewer houses available for people on ordinary council waiting lists, and not living in clearance areas, and requiring more than one bedroom.

In 1960, we added just 1,000 to the number of houses available for these people. In 1961, it was 5,000 on the wrong side. What we must have, and this is about the tenth time of asking in recent months, is an answer to one question from the Government. Do they regard this low and declining figure of council house building as satisfactory? They have always told us that if the councils would put up the rents more people would be squeezed out and would buy their own houses, which is so easy an occupation these days, and there would be lots more room. Or the Government say to the councils, "When you have old people whose families have dwindled, fling them out. Do not let them stay with their lifelong friends."

Let us suppose that every local authority dutifully followed the strictest path of Conservative ideology in its treatment of tenants. Are the Government saying on that assumption that this figure of council house building is adequate? I do not believe that that can be maintained and I do not think that they will try to maintain it. What are the Government going to do to increase the figure again? One of the first remarks made to me by the Minister's predecessor, when we first began to have exchanges across the Floor of the House about housing some years ago, was that I should be glad to see the amount of council house building going up. The figures issued at that time gave some colour to that remark, but I have had no cause for gladness since.

What do the Government think about the future of council house building? We shall be told that 74,000 houses were demolished last year, of which 60,000 were for slum clearance and 14,000 were demolitions for other reasons. What about the slum clearance drive? When we urged the Minister a few weeks ago to do something about urban renewal he said that he was delighted at the idea, but that slum clearance must come first. It is one of the characteristics of this Government that if we urge them to do A they explain that they cannot because they are eager to do B.

Let us look at what they have been doing about slum clearance. The programme is running, says the Minister—because I know his speech almost by heart by now—at 60,000 a year. I see from a glint in the Minister's eye that it is a few thousand above 60,000.

Sixty-four thousand.

Splendid. There are about 5 million houses in the country at present which are over sixty years old. In the next ten years a good many of them will become slums, or something very like it. This figure of 60,000, or even 64,000 a year, is barely keeping pace wish the rate of obsolescence at present.

If that, rate is maintained it will take about nine years to get rid of the dwellings reckoned to be slums in that famous estimate made in 1955. That by itself might sound cheerful enough, but there are two things to be noticed. We cannot place much reliance on the estimate that there were 850,000 slum dwellings in 1955 because the way the estimating was done was so remarkably haphazard. I find it difficult to believe that the percentage of dwellings properly to be called slums is the same in Cardiff as in Sutton and Cheam, yet that is the kind of estimate on which this figure of 850,000 in 1955 is based.

Even if we assume that that is correct and we go on as we have been going and get rid of those 850,000 in nine years' time, there will be in nine years' time at least that number which we shall be obliged to regard as slums when we look at the ages of houses at present. The Government have cut down the whole process of municipal building to a concentration on slum clearance, and even so, with the rest of the hopes of people who want to live in council houses in ruins, it is not adequate to the situation.

I conclude, therefore, that when we review Conservative policy on housing we must decide that we are not on the right road. Here are some of the things to which the Minister might give attention if he wants to get on the right road. First, there is the land question. If he will not do anything about the ownership of land, or the control of the price of land, what are the Government doing to prevent the excessive and growing concentration of industry and the potential seekers of homes in certain areas of the kingdom that creates in those areas an almost intolerable land problem?

Secondly, there are the interest rates. If the Minister will not consider favourable rates of interest, will he consider some form of centralised borrowing for the needs of local authorities, and that not only for housing, because these high interest rates affect all their work? Over the last nine years the amount of money paid in rates, averaged per head of the population, has doubled, but people's incomes have not doubled during the last nine years.

Next, in the field of local authority responsibility generally, cannot the Minister do what a number of his hon. Friends have asked him, and we on this side have asked him even earlier, namely, consider alternative methods of local government finance? I do not believe that we can combine the desire to make local authorities our chief instruments for civilisation and amenity with our present rating system. The two things just do not add up.

Will the Minister set in train concentrations in the building industry to see whether, if he does not like the idea of subsidising housing, he can make it physically less expensive? Until he can obtain some results in that field, will he accept the necessity that council house building ought to be increasing as the years go by and not decreasing? These are the kind of questions to which the Minister's energies ought to be directed. If he devotes to them half the energy which he devotes to dictating rent policies to the local authorities, or to distorting and dismantling the education services of London, we shall all be better off.

One of the items which we are discussing today is an item for the Minister's salary—£5,000 a year, almost enough to provide two new two-bedroom dwellings. We look at the Minister, we look at the Government's policy, and we ask whether he is worth it. The right hon. Gentleman will have to consider whether he should not put his energies to things that would really matter, that would give some hope and some comfort to the millions of ill-housed and frustrated families throughout the country.

The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has made, as usual, a skilful and, indeed, a clever speech. I think that it was Sydney Smith who said:

"There are some men who continue to please and astonish the world even in the support of a bad cause. They are mighty in their fallacies and beautiful in their errors".

The hon. Member is one of those. He always sounds so moderate and so reasonable. Unfortunately, when he and the majority of his party deal with housing they always bring forward the same fallacies and errors. They have a very curious idea of what constitutes failure in a housing programme.

I should like, at the end of my speech, to deal at some length with home ownership, because the hon. Gentleman concentrated on it. This is something which is fundamental to the Conservative philosophy, as the hon. Gentleman said, but I should like, first, to put in a broad perspective, some of the matters which he raised.

It is unfortunate for the Opposition that they are completely stuck with the fundamental fallacy that we can in some way improve our existing stock of accommodation, or our use of it, by returning to the full rigours of rent control or interfering in some further way with the freedom of contract. But I think that many of our problems stem directly from the operation of the Rent Restriction Acts over the years. They have been a ferocious obstacle to better housing, so much so that our biggest housing liability at the present time lies in the millions of houses which are structurally sound, but which lack elementary amenities.

I do not want to cover a lot of ground that we have covered many times before, but the truth is that the freezing of rents stifled investment in houses to let and created widespread and unnecessary decay which it has taken Conservative policies to arrest. The truth is that the only way in which we can provide better homes is not by imposing more controls, as the Opposition would like us to do, but by building more new houses and by improving and converting more existing ones.

We have already done a great deal. We all know the basic figures—the hon. Gentleman was careful not to quote them himself—4 million new houses since the end of the war, 3 million under Conservative administration. This means that one house in every four is a new house conforming to modern standards. That is not failure, I should have thought. We sometimes overlook, although it is becoming of increasing importance, that over 250,000 houses have been modernised even since 1959. This is nothing to be complacent about, but it is not failure. This is a formidable achievement.

So much have we done that what we are often considering now is a problem Which is not so much quantitative as qualitative. It stems from the rising standards and general prosperity that Conservative administration has created. We look now far beyond slum clearance and the rehabilitation of blighted areas. We are considering now meeting the increasing demand for self-contained accommodation that comes from an increasing number of separate households.

The actual assessment of the long-term demand for new houses is inevitably speculative. The Alliance Building Society has put the figure at 400,000 a year over the next twenty years. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research, on which the hon. Gentleman relies for some of his information, has suggested only 225,000 a year. Maybe what we are doing at present, about 300,000 a year, will prove sufficient.

The trouble with these statistics, especially if they are projected forward, is that they assume a vacuum with no motive power coming from any source. They cannot contemplate the changing pattern of events, and so they are almost invariably wrong. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman pointed out some occasions on which estimates have proved inaccurate, particularly when they are looking forward.

The Government's policy, therefore, is to allow as many houses to be built and modernised as are required to meet the demands made by a nation with continually rising standards of life and labour. The actual rate of progress is limited solely and necessarily by the physical availability of resources, including particularly land and labour, and our ability to make the best use of them.

There are two questions to which I would say the House has to address its mind. They are not so much those that the hon. Gentleman put, but there are two which are, clearly, relevant. First, are we devoting to building and improving houses as much as our resources permit? Secondly, are we allocating those resources sensibly between the various demands for private and public housing, housing for purchase and housing to rent, housing for slum clearance and all the other special needs?

The hon. Gentleman really did not address himself to the first question at all. He was not able to say in any way how we could devote more of our resources to house building. The fact is that at present, as we all know, the level of construction shows the building industry still suffering from a measure of overstrain. The effect on public housing can be graphically illustrated by looking at the ratio between the number of dwellings under construction at the beginning of a year and the number completed. If we look at the figures for the last three years we find that, in 1959, 97 were completed out of 100 under construction at the beginning of the year. In 1960 it was 84 and in 1961 it was 72.

I should have thought that with the pressure on the building industry being so great, with completions lagging and with prices consequently rising, it was quite sensible last July to say that we should be careful about putting further work into contract. There are already some signs—I am sure that the House and particularly hon. Members opposite will be glad to hear this—that results are beginning to appear. During the past six months local authority tender prices have ceased their abrupt rise and something like stability has been achieved. Moreover, we are finding that work is moving faster from the approval stage into the construction stage.

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that is one of the ways in which we can bring prices down. The way the Opposition would like to bring prices down, as he indicated, would be by having lower interest rates. Certainly, everyone in every field of activity would rather have a lower interest rate. If the hon. Gentleman would lend me£1,000 at 2½per cent.—I think that that is the magic figure for bon. Members opposite—I should be very glad to accept it.

It is, however, a fallacy to believe that low interest rates quite unrelated to the economic situation of the country would mean lower prices. As the International Monetary Fund said in one of its reports:

"Countries which used monetary policy promptly and firmly were more successful than other countries in checking the rise in prices, credit and money supplies."

If the Labour Party had understood that philosophy when it was in power we should not have been on the verge of bankruptcy in 1951.

It is argued that housing should be treated, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, exceptionally by giving it a low rate of interest. The hon. Gentleman does not like the answer that he gets, but surely it is right to say that if one can make a special case for housing one can also make a special case for education, housing, or essential industrial development. The hon. Gentleman said that local authorities have to compete in the open market for their money; but so does everyone else. If we made a special arrangement for housing or some other service, it would clearly destroy the general economic policy, and the volume of housing investment is already very high.

In any event, if we did it the difference between the market rate and the specially low rate would have to be met out of taxation. It would, in fact, be a concealed subsidy. I, for one, believe that if we are to have subsidies we should let them be direct and let them be distributed according to need. This is the fundamental basis of our housing subsidy policy.

Local authority subsidies, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, cannot be related to a particular house, but must be related to the condition of the housing revenue account as a whole If the Exchequer subsidies, which now total about£70 million a year, are pooled, as they must be, and if all council tenants pay a reasonable rent, there is no financial consideration that should hold up essential local authority building. The subsidies themselves can be reviewed as the situation changes.

That is What we have done from time to time since the end of the war. They can be reviewed to meet a special need or a new strategic requirement. But I believe that, however calculated, they should not be indiscriminately applied. If subsidies are distributed indiscriminately they not only inflate demand, but deflate the hopes of those in real need while wasting both national and local resources.

Whatever view one takes of interest rates and subsidies, it is clear that juggling—which is what it would come to—with the real cost of house construction will not produce any land, labour, or material. In the short term, more houses can only be secured by accepting less of something else. It is up to the Opposition to suggest what the choice should be—houses or schools.

We know what pressure the building industry is under. Of course, from time to time the Opposition have said that we should build fewer shops, offices and garages. But it is living in a fool's paradise to imagine that if we eliminated every unnecessary office or shop or garage we would see a decisive difference. No one, not even the Opposition, suggests that we should not replace slum offices or should not redevelop city centres or provide shops on housing estates. Planning considerations may affect where we put them, but no one doubts the need.

Last year, the value of the new work undertaken by contractors in the building and civil engineering industry came to£1,881 million. Of this total, housing already accounts for 37 per cent. and other work for public authorities for 26 per cent. Industry takes only 22 per cent. and the rest—offices, shops, garages and miscellaneous buildings of every kind—total 15 per cent. There really is no reason to believe that a further diversion of resources to houses would be justified, much less that it would work miracles.

In the long run, there are only two ways in which we can bring about a large-scale increase in house building. The first is by securing, as we are endeavouring to do through a sound national economic policy, a real growth in the national economy, because then we would have greater resources for housing and the other things we want. The second way, upon which the hon. Member for Fulham also touched, and which we must pursue vigorously, is to increase the productive efficiency of the building industry. No doubt he has studied the recent report by Sir Harold Emmerson, which highlights the pro- blems to be tackled—better liaison between all concerned in the planning and creation of buildings, more standardisation of components and fittings, and a new look at methods of training.

This is one of the roads forward, but we must always recognise that the potential of the building industry is only one factor in the story. Our capacity to pay for the things we want will depend on the rate of growth of the economy and on the savings available for investment. Given that we have about as much building work as the resources of the industry and nation can bear, the question remains: are we allocating these resources sensibly between the various demands for private and public building? The hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Opposition, says that we are not doing so because we are not allocating enough to council house building to let.

The hon. Gentleman sought to prove this by taking the figures for one year, but that is another irrelevant statistic and a fallacy. We have to look at the total pool of local authority houses. Since the war, the local authorities have built almost two houses to every one built privately. I would not have called that failure, as is suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Local authorities now have 3½million houses, probably producing at least 70,000 relets a year.

I reiterate what I did not think the hon. Gentleman liked to hear, although he must like it because he raises this matter time and time again. It is that if the rent policies of local authorities were such as to make houses available for people in the greatest need, no further public building at all would be wanted in a great many areas, except to meet a special social need, such as housing for old people.

In congested areas like London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, and others of our older towns and cities, no one doubts that there remains a vast job to be done. In the Government's view, the public housing problems calling for the most urgent attention—as the hon. Gentleman suggested—are slum clearance, building for old people, the relief of overcrowding and other bad conditions, and overspill. The extent to which these tasks individually call for continued building of council houses varies from one authority to another. It is for this purpose that the new housing subsidy structure, under the Housing Act, 1961, enables local authorities to concentrate on those things which they consider most urgent in their own areas.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that we have not done much to clear the slums. Since 1955, over 348,000 slums have been been cleared in England and Wales. That has meant the rehousing of 900,000 people. The evidence is that the pace has grown as local authorities have gained experience. In the exchange between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend was able to point out how the figure had risen last year to 64,300. That is not failure. It is nothing to be complacent about, but it is a real achievement—much more real than a recent article in the New Left Review, from which I think the hon. Gentleman drew some information and which I was invited to read before the Easter Recess. The article had the curious title, "But Nothing Happens". But some people never understand what happens.

Even so, I accept that the hon. Gentleman's estimate that over 500,000 slums remain and that other houses will become unfit with the passage of time. In the Conservative Party's 1959 General Election manifesto, we pledged ourselves to rehouse at least another 1 million slum dwellers by 1965. That is a minimum, not a maximum aim. Of course, some local authorities complain, especially around election time, that their allocation of houses has been cut. We certainly try to see that, in the allocation of local authority housing, the impetus is given to solving the problems in those areas which have the greatest difficulty. In such places, allocations must be related, for the reasons I have explained, to the amount of work which can reasonably be expected to be done.

If we look at what the local authorities sometimes ask for, at what we give them, at what they did the year before, and at what they asked for the year before, the allocations often look generous. But if faster progress is made than anticipated, the Minister has always said that he is willing to reconsider the position.

We all know the general nature of the obstacles that have to be overcome in these congested areas. The difficulty is not finance. It includes the shortage of technical staff, demands on building labour and the physical lack of land. It is our policy, often reiterated, to secure the most intensive use we can of urban land by encouraging building, wherever appropriate, at higher densities, and by better use of urban land not fully developed.

We will shortly be publishing a booklet on residential densities which, I hope, will stimulate local authority interest in this topic. But however intensely we develop our cities, after we have made the proper provision for shops, parks and other amenities, there is always an overspill problem remaining—or almost always. This can be met by long-term allocation of land in development plans. Development procedure provides for periodic review, but we have already told local planning authorities that where additional allocations of land are needed they are to proceed without waiting for the quinquennial review.

We also envisage—and this may be of more fundamental importance in the long run—the extension of town development schemes. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that, for these schemes are not part of the queer story of failure which he told. By December, 1961, agreements had been made to provide for 82,750 houses. Another eighteen schemes, which are expected to provide homes for over 250,000 people, are being negotiated. In addition, we are examining the possibility of expansion of a number of large towns, with a consequential bigger contribution to the solution of the overspill problem.

Here, again, the new powers and the subsidy provisions in the Housing Act, 1961, provide a framework on which further progress may be made—as hon. Members will know, the provision of subsidy was substantially increased. It may well be that in the coming years town development schemes will play a much more important part in our efforts than hitherto.

The scheme for the expansion of a certain number of small towns for the transfer of people out of the big centres of population has provided valuable experience, but the great cities continue to be a magnet to immigrants of every kind. We want to be sure in future that the towns which are to be expanded are of a size sufficient to attract people independently and to offer a wide range of careers to young people. They must be magnets themselves to immigrants and so really take some of the pressure off the big cities. In these circumstances, it seems to follow that town development schemes should provide the framework for releasing the positive energies of industrialists and private householders and developers and not just provide a means for shifting a number of people out of the big cities.

Slum clearance and overspill are the overriding problems which now face the local authorities. That is not to say that they may not, in their own particular cases, feel that there is a higher claim for old people or the relief of overcrowding. There is certainly a widespread need, for example, for the small labour-saving houses in which old people can live their independent lives. As the hon. Member for Fulham acknowledged, housing authorities have been given every encouragement to build for this purpose and over the last four years about 100,000 such dwellings have been provided. That, I suggest to the hon. Member, is not failure.

While local authorities have this important and continuing part to play, I believe that private enterprise is rightly catering to an increasing extent for general needs. In a prosperous society there is no reason why the vast majority of people should not be quite prepared —as I think many of them are—to pay the economic price for a better home. The Blue Book—amidst a wonderful collection of statistics—showed that consumer expenditure on alcohol and smoking was£2,140 million in 1960, 40 per cent. more than the entire amount spent on rent, including the imputed rent for owner-occupiers, rates, water charges, housing maintenance repairs and improvement.

Do those figures include the tax on cigarettes and pipe tobacco which goes back to the Treasury?

That is an interesting economic argument, but does not falsify my point, which was that if people choose to spend their money in that way they can also choose to spend it in others which they may believe to be less beneficial to Her Majesty's Treasury.

For many people, including those who frequently move, home ownership is not the solution. I accept what the hon. Member for Fulham said about that. Those people are looking now to the existing pool of local authority and private accommodation available for renting. I think that they have a much better chance of finding a house to rent in most parts of the country today than they had a few years ago. One of the difficulties which was created by the Rent Acts was that they gave special protection to those who had accommodation at the expense of those who had not, including young married couples.

We always hear about the people who move out, but we do not hear about the people who move in, although their claim may be as great. To strike a fair balance between the position of the two groups, we have to consider where such people had previously been living and how long they had been on a council's waiting list. We had a short debate on housing just before the Easter Recess, when it was argued that landlords frequently sell houses which come into their possession rather than let them again.

The hon. Member for Fulham quoted the social survey prepared by the Central Office of Information, which showed that since the operation of the Rent Act and up to the point when the survey was made 12 per cent. of the houses becoming decontrolled through changes in the rateable value limit were sold to owner-occupiers. It is not a very high percentage, but I have no doubt that many people wished to buy and there is no reason why such houses should not be attractive to the tenants, although the hon. Member seemed to think that there was. What is certain is that if rent control had been continued, the percentage sold would certainly have increased.

I do not believe that the Rent Act has done nothing to help those who want rented accommodation. With the enormous influx of population into London and south-east England in the last few years it is not surprising that demand outstrips supply here, but that is not true of many other places and this is a housing debate about England and Wales and not simply about the London problem. Many people are finding it possible to rent houses and rooms and flats, but I am sure that before the 1957 Act it was almost impossible for many young people to find anything to rent. They were entirely dependent on the housing waiting lists unless they happened to be some of those people who were in accommodation which was "frozen" both as to rent and as to occupation. As we know, before the operation of the Rent Act and up to 1957 we could not get any rental evidence on which to base a revaluation of housing. That is an indication of the state of the market before the 1957 Act.

I accept that the only answer to the difficulties of tenants is not more controls, but more houses. I agree with the hon. Member that not enough new houses, certainly not as many as we would wish, have been built by private enterprise to rent. That is because investors are reluctant to put their money into that form of investment, and I am afraid that they will remain reluctant so long as the Labour Party threatens to impose rent restrictions. The hon. Member for Fulham may not like that answer, but I cannot change it. It is a fact.

I hope that the£25 million fund made available to housing associations under the 1961 Act, will enable these bodies, who have been great pioneers in social housing, to extend their activities and will encourage them to build accommodation to let at cost rents at a level rather above those of local authority dwellings, thus making it easier for people who have not the wish, or perhaps the means, to own their own homes to get accommodation.

I will conclude by dealing with what the hon. Member had to say at some length on the subject of home ownership. The desire for home ownership, which it is Conservative policy to promote, is widespread and very strong. The House will recall that the party opposite did nothing to encourage it. Only 22,000 new houses were purchased in 1951 and there was little or no alternative to the waiting list.

What about interest charges?

The hon. Members seems to think that low interest rates produce bricks, but they do not.

We think that we have been right to free private developers to meet this demand for home ownership. The hon. Member says that home ownership is beyond the means of ordinary people, but that is not borne out by the facts. Last year, the building societies' advances amounted to about£545 million compared with£517 million in 1959. Indeed, one of their difficulties has been the pressure of demand upon their available funds. People are anxious to buy their houses. During 1961, local authorities alone lent£99 million compared with£66 million in 1960 and£55 million in 1959. I do not believe that the statistics which purport to show that a man must be able to earn about£20 a week before he can buy a house are correct.

The hon. Member for Fulham obviously relied on the report by Mr. Needleman, of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. The figures which he gave assume that no house purchaser has any ready cash with which to pay the deposit or the costs of purchase—costs which, incidentally, have been reduced three times by a Conservative Government in a reduction in the Stamp Duty, and eliminated altogether on small houses. Under Conservative administration people have been able to save much more than was possible between 1945 and 1951. As the hon. Gentleman said, regard must also be paid to the tax allowance on mortgages, and ultimately to the inducement which will arise on the Chancellor's proposals on Schedule A.

What about the interest rates that owner-occupiers now have to pay? The hon. Gentleman is aware that in recent years the rates to be paid by purchasers have risen considerably. We have learnt in recent weeks that these high rates are to become stabilised and permanent. These rates of interest have risen due to Government policy.

I do not think that it is fair to say that they have become stabilised and permanent. The building societies say that the pressure of demand on resources is so great that they cannot meet the requirements of everybody, and they say also that whatever the Bank Rate may be the pressure on various important parts of the economy is so great that they cannot borrow money at a lower rate, and they cannot lend money until they have first borrowed it.

Increases in interest rates have taken place for many reasons. Nobody does it just to be malicious to the community. It is necessary for the general strength of the economy. If one considers the position over a number of years it will be seen that it does not work out too badly. One has also to have regard to the effect of tax concessions on these repayments.

I want to deal with the point put strongly by the hon. Member for Fulham, that people cannot afford to buy their own homes. This is the key issue. What I want to look at is not merely the rate of interest, but at the price of the house and the expense, If interest rates were reduced to an artificially low level, it may be that the price of houses would rise.

The hon. Gentleman knows that during the last three or four years the Government's dear money policy has resulted in a crippling impost on owner-occupiers. We understand that the high rates of interest are to be permanent, despite a reduction in the Bank Rate.

It is untrue that the present interest rates are to be permanent, and the hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do.

I want to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Fulham, that people of ordinary means cannot afford to buy homes. I commend to the hon. Gentleman and to the House an interesting article by Mr. Arthur Seldon, in the April issue of the Statist which gives striking evidence of the demand for home ownership and the way it is being met. The author points out that

"House ownership is within the means of possibly millions of manual and wage paid workers. 9,545 mortgages to owner-occupiers were completed by the Co-operative Permanent Building Society between December 30, 1959 and March 31, 1960…The Society believes the sample was large and varied enough to be representative. Of 2,462 new houses, 926 were bought by wage earners. Of 7,083 existing houses, 3,945 were bought by wage earners."

Supporting figures from the Alliance Building Society show that of 4,253 mortgages completed between January and November, 1960, 2,644, or more than half the mortgagors, earned less than£800 a year, and 1,380, or nearly a third, earned less than£650.

More recently—because I want to bring these matters as far up to date as I can—Mr. J. C. Dunham, the Chairman of the Co-operative Building Society, had this to say at the annual general meeting on 24th March of this year:

"It has been stated that the recent rise in property prices has put home ownership beyond the means of all except those in higher income groups. This argument, however, does not stand up to close examination. Existing house prices it is true are now on average four times higher than in the immediate pre-war period."—

I think that that is what the hon. Gentleman proved in his example from Hen-don—

"But earnings have risen even more: the earnings of adult male workers in manufacturing industries are now reported to be 4½times higher than the comparable figure for 1939. Admittedly, the high and rising cost of accommodation in the London and the South-East areas is a matter for concern, but, taking the country as a whole, a wider section of the community can now afford house purchase than before the war."

Mr. Dunham went on to say that

"the closing weeks of 1961 showed a welcome increase in the flow of savings to building societies. I am pleased to report that this trend has continued into 1962 and is making possible a modest expansion in the volume of lending."

This shows that an increasing number of people can, and are, buying their own homes.

Was not it Mr. Dunham who recently pointed out that at the rate things were going nobody with less than£20 a week would be able to get a mortgage?

I think that he made another statement. I am not sure that he was not torn somewhat out of context, and I think that he tried to put it right at the annual general meeting.

I think that we can survey in this debate today steady progress in every part of the housing field. To listen to the hon. Member for Fulham, one would not imagine that the supply of new houses had risen by 300,000 every year. Slum clearance, housing for old people, and for urgent social needs are being given a high priority. Home ownership is rising, and the improvement of existing houses is gathering momentum.

When all the evidence is weighed, and we vote at ten o'clock, we can only come to the conclusion that what the Opposition say about providing more housing accommodation by repealing the 1957 Act and by fiddling about with interest rates is not just plain nonsense—it is nonsense upon stilts.

Having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary, I think he must live in a different world from that in which I live. I understand that his constituency is Norwich. Mine is Chorley, in the industrial part of Lancashire. There seems to be a vast difference between the resources of the citizens in these two constituencies.

We have these debates from time to time, and similar arguments are used from both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman gave us a technical and somewhat academic statement. I want to look at this question from a different angle. Having had some experience of housing both as a minister and as a member of a local authority for over 20 years, I want to draw on my experience from the human angle. When I went on to the council in 1923 this was one of our major problems, and it is one of our major problems today. It is remarkable that today the number of applications for houses in that local authority area are little different from what they were in 1923. This housing problem has been with us for the full lifetime of the oldest Member of the House, and at the rate at which we are moving it will be with us for the full lifetime of the youngest Member. It will not be settled in that period.

Yet it is a phase of human life which affects our whole existence and the whole strata of our society. It is not possible to estimate the effect of overcrowding or the lack of adequate housing upon disease, crime and a whole range of human relations. The cost to the nation in terms of disease, especially mental disease, and crime, especially juvenile crime, is totally unknown, but if the housing problem were solved and it was possible for every family to live in a separate house, the saving to the nation would be immense. I am glad that the Minister recently spoke out against the small houses that are being built. Overcrowding does not necessarily mean too many individuals living in a house. It can mean too small a house even for a small family. The need for individual privacy in the home is not often realised, and in the most closely-knit families the need for such privacy is often the key to family unity. Every house should be so built that each member of the family living in it can make it a home and not merely a dwelling place.

I now turn to the problem of the house owner. I do not know why the Minister should claim house ownership as a purely Conservative principle. There is nothing in Socialist principles which is against anyone owning his own house, and there never has been. A family owning its own house is in a very good position, provided that such ownership does not become a burden. It becomes wrong when a family has to mortgage its whole future in order to live in a separate house. People just cannot obtain rented houses. It is an utter impossibility in my constituency. This is one of the overwhelming burdens of thousands of families. It is one of the causes of mental strain and breakdown, which often results in family strife and even separation.

As a magistrate, I often come across cases in which, owing to difficulties and strain, separation is requested by the members of families. It is not a question of a family being able to afford to buy a house; thousands of families today have bought houses which they cannot afford. The cost of the mortgage is not the only cost which has to be borne; too often one finds that a family which is buying a house then has to buy furniture on hire purchase. This means a weekly payment for the house and another for the furniture, added to which there is the cost of running the home.

So many different demands are made upon wages and salaries that conflicts of desire inevitably arise, often with unfortunate consequences to both parents and children. The affluent State or the prosperous State is an absolute myth when people own things merely by way of debt. This is the burden of the 1960s—the national debt, the municipal debt, the industrial debt and the individual debt. We are absolutely surrounded by debts, and we are living in a State which never faces that fact. I want to face the facts as they affect housing today.

I am expressing entirely my own views. They have nothing to do with the Labour or Socialist movement; they are my own views, which I am putting forward because I have come across this problem so often in the various spheres in which I have had to work. Every decent council wishes to see its citizens properly housed, but it cannot do so when it is faced with the present system of borrowing money at high, or even so-called low rates of interest. We have reached a position in which we consider a Bank Rate of 4½per cent. as a low rate, but it is not a low rate. Local authorities have borrowed so much money in order to carry out so many different ventures that the rates have become far too high for them to undertake comprehensive housing schemes.

The Minister has quoted the number of houses built, but he has not quoted the net figure. What is the net figure we get, year by year, after all the slum houses have been wiped out, and all the houses that are falling down have been pulled down? What is the net contribution being made by the resources of the Government and private resources towards improving housing conditions? There is no sense in either a council or a private owner building a house the final cost of Which, because of interest rates, will be twice its value, or even more than that. So long as it is necessary to borrow money on a twenty-, forty- or sixty-year term basis extortionate costs are inevitable.

I want to put forward a suggestion for eliminating this interest burden. This is a national issue, and not one merely for the Government. The housing problem is an issue for the nation—Government, municipalities, societies, and individuals. Everyone is concerned in it. It will call for a great deal of effort from all parties to overcome this problem. Under the scheme that I am going to propose the main burden must fall upon local authorities. The authorities must build houses to rent. The Parliamentary Secretary said that private builders cannot do so under present circumstances, and the local authorities must bear the burden of building the houses and raising the money.

I ask, first, that a Government grant be made for every house built by a local authority; not a loan, but a grant. Already this is done for the private owner who is willing to modernise his house. Anyone who proposes to save a building from becoming a slum, provided the local surveyor guarantees its life for a certain period, can receive a grant from the Government. Let the Government make an equivalent grant for a new house. There would be some saving, and in doing this the Government would give a lead.

Secondly, I ask that each local authority taking up this scheme should set aside an annual contribution from the rate fund to be placed in a housing fund until such time as sufficient money became available to make building continuous. I say that the money should come from the rate fund because when the scheme became self-sufficient the authority could always repay the money. It would be free of interest, of course. Thirdly, thousands of people today are saving money so that when they marry they can put down a deposit on a house. With proper organisation the money saved by those people could be put into a council housing fund and be used to build houses to let to those who had placed their money with the council. People do not want houses all at the same time. Provided that there was an accumulation of money from the Government, from local authorities and from individuals, a start could be made, and the finance involved in building the houses would be interest-free.

The amount of money in the country in the form of small sums is remarkable. If this money were pooled for this purpose it would meet the requirements of a large number of people and enable them to become, in turn, tenants of houses. When a couple or a family became house tenants, the council would have two choices. It could repay the money loaned by the tenant, or the tenant could be given a free tenancy up to the value of the money. I feel that this could be done. It has been estimated, even by the Minister, that it will take twenty years to fulfil the housing requirements, and, according to past experience, I do not think that we shall have succeeded even in that time.

A council could start a savings scheme in which anyone expecting to require a house in the future could contribute money week by week. Appeals could be made for interest-free loans and gifts could be made from organisations, or from churches, in order to accumulate a fund with which to start. I was the mayor of a borough where for four years during the war we made periodic appeals to the citizens for money for the war effort. From the point of view of the nation this housing question is as urgent as was the need for funds at that time. I am confident that if the matter were put to the citizens of this country by the local authorities, and they were asked to make contributions, they would rise to the occasion and we should be able to get rid of the tremendous burden of debt which bears so hardly on so many families.

What are the advantages? The first advantage would be that from the moment a house was tenanted the local authority would have an income which could be placed in the building fund. In time—it would take time, but, my word, this problem has itself lasted for some time—according to the amount accumulated in the fund, the scheme would become self-supporting. The rents from houses thus built would accumulate according to the number of houses. The scheme would become a credit to the borough concerned and there would not exist an everlasting debt.

I have put this scheme forward in all sincerity because I am deeply concerned about the conditions under which thousands of families have to live and the burden of debt with which they are faced. Recently a visited a private housing estate not far from here and spoke to a number of people. I met a number of ministers associated with this estate, where thousands of people live, and I discussed with them the problems confronting the residents. I was told that the biggest problem for the people on this estate was the problem of debt. They are mortgaged up to the hilt for their houses. Many have borrowed money in order to put down a deposit. The house furniture is mortgaged and many of the children are not receiving the necessities of life. In an affluent State it is time that we moved as a nation, as a Government and Opposition, as municipalities and as individuals, in order to put right this tremendous and evergrowing evil.

This is the fourth housing debate we have had within three months. I cannot recollect our having had four debates on one social subject within such a short period before. I think it reflects the great anxiety there is in all parts of the House on this subject. It is perhaps the most important, certainly the most intractable, problem in the domestic field. I do not believe that our relative success or failure with any other service, such as health or education, causes one-tenth of the human misery now being felt year after year by thousands upon thousands of our people who cannot get a home.

In opening the debate from this side of the Committee my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—I was going to say in his clever speech, but that word now has a sting which I should certainly not wish to use—in his able speech, kept referring to our prosperous society. I wish he had shown a much greater realisation of the fact that our prosperous society, with all its modern inventions and achievements in science, up to now has failed so abjectly in doing something which seems so elementary as the provision of enough homes for our people. Quite frankly, I did not feel that the Parliamentary Secretary's speech showed any realisation of the very serious position in which we are in this respect at present.

In my constituency of Solihull there is a live waiting list of families, whose needs have been examined and accepted, of over 1,500. That represents about 3,000 adults, with perhaps another 2,000 children. Approximately it is 5 per cent. of the population of the borough. If in Britain we had 5 per cent. unemployed there would be an outcry. Surely it is just as important that this high proportion of no less than one family in twenty should be properly housed. The housing shortage is the cause not only of the greatest unhappiness in our society, but also, as the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) said, of much ill-health and nervous strain and the breaking up of families, as well as making a contribution to juvenile delinquency.

As I have said, there are rather more than 1,500 families on the books in Solihull, which means a five or six years' building programme. Unhappily, the list is growing all the time as more young people get married and come into the housing market. It is terrible to think that young couples getting married have to wait for five or six years before they can get a home of their own. Yet I know that there are many constituencies, for example, in the City of Birmingham and also in London, which are far worse off than my constituency.

As the Parliamentary Secretary said, we have built nearly 4 million new houses and flats in Britain since the war. Both sides of the Committee are entitled to take credit for that. It is unquestionably a great achievement. And it is good to know that one family in four is living in a post-war house. Nevertheless, we sometimes overlook the fact that the war has been over now for seventeen years, and the housing problem is still a long way from being solved. We have gone a great way towards solving it for those who can afford to buy their houses. The figures for owner-occupied houses have gone up steadily year after year, from 25,000 ten years ago to 180,000 last year. Let us be thankful for our success in that field, which certainly has benefited my constituency.

Where we have relatively failed is in council house building. There the trend has been exactly the other way. Five years ago we built 170,000 council houses and flats, but each year since 1957 the figure has dropped, falling to 116,000 in 1961. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) quoted the figure of 90,000. I do not know where he got that. I looked up the figures last night in the Library and, according to my reading, the number was 116,000. If it was 90,000 that makes the point stronger. Whether it was 90,000 or 116,000, it was the lowest figure since 1947, the second complete year after the war ended.

Do those figures relate to the whole United Kingdom, or is the hon. Member talking about England and Wales alone?

No, my figure relates to the Whole of the United Kingdom. Perhaps the figure of the hon. Member for Fulham is for England and Wales only.

Houses to purchase are, of course, fine for those who can afford them, and I do not want to decry our success in getting so many houses privately built. But it is our responsibility to make provision for those who need our help most; I take it that that is what most of us are sent here for. There are plenty of good, steady family men in responsible jobs earning£12 or£13 a week. At that level of income no building society will touch them. Nor, paying inflated rents, have they had any chance of saving£200 or£300 for the necessary deposit. For the great majority of our people nothing but a high rate of council house building can suffice. That is indisputable. I get annoyed by Ministers on our side of the Committee who keep boasting about our success in house building when they know that the rate of council house building is going down year after year.

I have three suggestions to make. One is in regard to the shortage of land. What is being done to ensure that local authorities increase their density and by building upwards with blocks of flats where necessary, expensive though that is? Of course, these must be on suitable sites. How strict is the Ministry in comparing local authorities' development plans with their housing waiting lists? I should like the Minister to say quite firmly that if their proposed density is not sufficient to make a real onslaught on these long waiting lists, then he will not approve their development plans.

The second and a minor suggestion is in regard to the provision of old people's dwellings. Local authorities on the average are building 25 per cent. for the elderly. We have a progressive council in Solihull and our percentage is 40 per cent. The provision of this type of accommodation often means the release of a three-bedroom house which goes on the market and is then bought by some stranger from far away, who often has less need for it than a family on the council's waiting list. Local authorities can obtain loan sanction and buy these houses as they come on to the market and let them to people on their waiting lists.

A little while ago I asked the then Minister of Housing what he would do to encourage local authorities to do just this, but I am afraid I could not arouse much enthusiasm. He said that he would always be willing to give local authorities loan sanction for this purpose, but that he,

"did not wish to encourage needless municipalisation through the back door."

I do not like saying this about a respected and highly successful Minister, but it seems that that is carrying political prejudice altogether too far. Of course, proposals such as this can do no more than be of marginal assistance.

The hon. Member for Fulham and the Parliamentary Secretary both mentioned a matter to which I am sure much greater attention must be devoted, and that is to get greater productivity out of the building industry by, perhaps, rationalisation and the use of more modern methods, and of other means for bringing down the cost of building. What is really necessary is to lighten the burden on the building industry so that contracts for more council house building can more easily be placed.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that this was quite impossible. He told us how the allocation of building for the whole country was worked out and explained that it was impossible to give greater priority for house building. As far as council house building is concerned, I do not accept that. I am perfectly certain that greater priority must be given to building more council houses, if necessary by restricting other and less desirable forms of building. I hope that the Minister will examine this once again. One thing which is quite certain is that the present housing situation calls for a dynamic and altogether new approach.

The speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Solihull (Sir M. Lindsay) has put the case for building more council houses so clearly and effectively that I hope the hon. Gentleman will cross to this side of the Committee in order to let the Government know fully his discontent with the results of their policy.

I intend to show that not only is it true that one half of the world does not know how the other half lives, but that it is also true that one half of a city does not know how the other half lives. I am one of the 21 million viewers who watch "Coronation Street". It is the most popular programme on television, and deservedly so, because it shows working men and women in an honest way and deals so naturally with their lives that viewers come to know the characters as if they were real people. Harry Hewitt and his wife Concepta and Elsie Tanner and her son become people we know personally. But what many viewers do not realise is that these fine men and women are living in houses which are a disgrace to our society, in houses without a bath, hot water or an inside toilet.

I happen to know this for one very good reason. The shots which open and close each episode of "Coronation Street" are taken in my constituency. I know the street very well. These terraced houses are typical of the great industrial areas of Lancashire, Yorkshire and the Midlands, of houses without a bath, without hot water and without an inside toilet. In these areas, particularly in Lancashire and Yorkshire, we find a Coronation Street in every town.

After which coronation were they named? If we look at them we can see that it was clearly no recent coronation. It was the coronation of Queen Victoria in 1837. Indeed, we in Salford have just pulled down a slum called Waterloo Place which goes back, if my history is not mistaken, to just after 1815. It may have been considered good enough for working men and women to live in this type of houses in 1837 but it is certainly not good enough in 1962, in an age when we are constantly told of this wonder of the Welfare State. I do not believe that the Welfare State has even begun. There is a great deal of nonsense talked about it. Not to be able to provide families with a bath in an age of automation, atomic energy and space travel shows, I think, a wrong sense of values altogether.

Some hon. Members and, if I may say so, some Ministers have no conception of what it means for parents to have to live in a house without a bath and to try in those circumstances to bring up their children healthily and properly. Take the case of the typical industrial worker who comes home from work covered with oil, dust or sweat and who has no bath to use. Take, too, the case of the building worker who comes home after a day on the job and who wants to wash his feet. His wife has to boil a kettle of water and to bring an enamel bowl from under the cupboard to enable him to do so.

An engineering friend of mine said to me that when he feels a cold coming on or feels at all unwell he knows that if he could take a hot bath and go to bed he might in the morning be all right. But there is no bath available to him. We should realise what it means to have to bath children when every drop of water has to be ladled out of the saucepan off the gas stove and into the bath. This filling and emptying of the bath in some cases needs the strength of an athlete. I know of cases where children have been seriously scalded owing to the water having to be heated in this way in an overcrowded kitchen.

Take another aspect of this matter, the serious health cases, and let us admit that the housing shortage is so acute and the council house list so long that in many areas unless one is practically dying of T.B. one has no chance at all of getting priority. I am indebted to a London social worker, Audrey Harvey, for supplying details of one or two cases, admittedly of a terrible nature. She tells about a London doctor, one of whose patients was suffering from a skin disease. The doctor said that the patient must take a daily bath, but she had no access to one. The doctor was so struck by this that he made a survey among 500 of his patients and found that 44 per cent. of them lived in houses in which there was no bath.

Another case mentioned by Audrey Harvey was that of a woman who had had a major operation on the intestine through the abdominal wall and this required the constant changing of the dressings and her clothing. It is a very distressing state of affairs, but there are quite a number of people in this condition. The woman had to haul buckets of water up from the ground floor tap to the top floor in order to wash her dressings and clothes. Not unnaturally she was soon back in hospital.

Another case was that of a man of 75 who had undergone a similar operation. When he came out of hospital his daughter took him into her house although she and her husband and four children were living in only two rooms. The poor old man had to change his dressings and wash himself at the kitchen sink. The daughter was so upset by this constant sight and the fear for her children's health that she developed a nervous skin disease which covered her arms, legs and face with festering sores.

I have known cases of women being driven into nervous breakdowns through trying to cope with three or four young children in houses of this character. I had some correspondence recently on this subject. Although by no means everyone agrees with the point of view which I am putting forward, nevertheless no one so far has contested the fact that in 1962 there are 5 million houses or, roughly, 15 million men, women and children living in houses without a bath.

The solution quite obviously is to replace these houses with modern houses. At the present rate of progress, however, it will take fifty years before some of these families have houses to go into. The alternative is the Government grant to install a bath, inside toilet and hot water. The Government have generously increased this grant recently, but, with a few honourable exceptions, landlords just will not be bothered to make use of it, although the owner-occupiers will. One out of every twenty-seven owner-occupiers in the country has used this grant, whereas only one out of every two hundred private landlords has made use of it.

The recent change in the 1961 Act has enabled the landlord, apart from getting half the grant free from the Government, to raise his rent by 12½per cent. over twelve years, so that in twelve years he receives back 150 per cent. of his outlay. I know that there are certain expenses to put against it, but nevertheless the landlord is on to a good thing. What is the result? Strangely enough, the situation is often worse.

Yesterday, the Minister gave me some figures. I admit that when one gets an answer from a Minister at Question Time one cannot always work it out on the spot, but I have since been studying his answer. It shows a remarkable state of affairs. In the year ended 31st March this year 24,687 grants were made for houses owned by private landlords. Since the more generous grant came in last year, only 7,073 such grants had been made in the last four months. So in a year the rate will be 21,000 grants, which is 4,000 fewer than the rate obtaining before the increased Government grant came in. This does not seem to be a very good way of encouraging the landlords. It seems to be encouraging them to go backwards. At this rate of installing baths, it will take about 170 years before each family has a bath in the house.

Another remarkable feature of the Minister's answer is that, although private landlord-owned houses greatly outnumber owner-occupied houses, only one in three of the applications made for grants are coming from private landlords. Twice as many are coming from owner-occupiers, although there are fewer owner-occupied houses.

What does the Minister propose? He proposes further publicity. This has been tried and failed. There has been national publicity on television. I saw it myself a year ago. There has been specialised publicity in certain areas, including my own, and greater public interest taken in this matter, but there has been no response by the landlords. So the public health inspectors, who are people who really know, and many local authorities have been driven to the conclusion that there must be some form of compulsion on the landlords to use the existing Government grants. This was proposed in a Motion, just before Easter, signed by 110 Labour Members of Parliament.

I have recently received some very enlightening letters on this matter, mostly from landlords, and one or two from Conservative Members of Parliament. These letters fall into two categories. The first takes the line that it is the tenant's fault—that tenants do not want baths in their houses. Many of us remember the pre-war fairy story, "If you build council houses for working people, they will put coal in the baths". This story, while commonly told, was never substantiated.

Today, the modern version is slightly different. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) has said that tenants do not want baths and are not prepared to pay a little extra rent for them. I challenge him to go to Manchester, Salford, Birmingham, Newcastle, Glasgow and parts of London and repeat the claim that he made about families living in these conditions. I warn him that they will scalp him.

I based what I said in my letter on my particular knowledge of the East End of London, and I shall be very happy at any time to take the hon. Gentleman along and show him houses where three out of four of the families living there refuse to have improvements done by a housing association, with a charitable background, because they do not wish to pay extra rent for them. That is the case quite clearly.

All I can say is that it is absolutely in contradiction to my experience, not of three or four families, but of thousands of families living in the North. I would say that the dearest wish of many of those mothers is to have a bath in the house. I find it very hard to credit that kind of remark, because I do not think that the wishes of people in London are very different from those in the North.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to come with me to visit those houses. I should be delighted to pay him a visit in his constituency to see if I could help there in the installation of baths or of any other appliances which are necessary.

I accept the hon. Member's offer with pleasure and I will go with him this week. But I challenge him also to repeat to a meeting of families in these circumstances what he has said on this matter.

I would rather see the families in their homes than at a meeting.

Certainly. I am sure that he will be welcome to see their homes.

Some people think that opinion has changed in this country and that we have all become more civilised. But I have received letters of such a degree of snobbishness and spite that I begin to wonder if that is so. I have a letter here from a gentleman, whose name I shall not mention. He is an Army captain, writing from Salisbury. He writes:

"A house without a bathroom is not necessarily a slum. In my lifetime I have lived in three houses without bathrooms but they were far, very far, from being slums. One was a modern vicarage in England, one was a flat in the fashionable Parc Monceau quarter in Paris and the third was in a perfectly good street in Cologne."

I should like to wager that this gentleman has never had a dirty job in the whole of his life.