asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to what extent the creation of neat boundaries is a consideration of prime importance in fixing the limits of green belts.

Not at all. What is important is that green belt boundaries should be sensible both as to the land they enclose and the route they take. Wherever possible they should follow easily recognisable natural features.

While I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that the words contained in the Question were actually used by a planning officer in the West Country as an excuse to include a magnificent piece of open country and a historic house and to take them out of the green belt and put them in the white area? Will the right hon. Gentleman resist that sort of thing?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the proposal about the Yate-Sodbury area, I cannot anticipate my decision.

On that latter matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the importance of hurrying up the town map of the area on which this really depends?

Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with that.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on how many occasions all the Commissioners of the Local Government Commission for England visited Great Yarmouth in connection with their proposals for Great Yarmouth contained in Report No. 9; and whether any of these visits took place during the holiday season between 1st July and 15th September.

I have no information on these matters beyond what is in the Commission's published Report. The Commission is not responsible to me for the conduct of its reviews. That is a matter within its own discretion, subject of course to the statutory requirements.

I am sorry about this. I understand that about one and a half visits were paid to Yarmouth. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he really thinks that this is sufficient acquaintance with the problems of a town like Yarmouth fitting the Commission to lay down the future form of administration for a town of this sort for, perhaps, 200 years against the wishes of the people?

I rather anticipated the hon. Gentleman, and I would like to say this to him. I think that the Commissions should be encouraged, or allowed by the Minister, to conduct their business in their own way. I think it far wiser for me to maintain the tradition that I ask them to tell me as a matter of courtesy. I cannot insist that they should tell me the details of how they conduct their business.

Is it not expedient that justice should not only be done but manifestly be seen to be done, and is it not a common experience that if visits are not paid to places affected like this a sense of injustice, however unjustifiable, is certain to arise?

I think that we have to balance these evils. One of the difficulties here is that the Commission has finished its functions and, therefore, apart from its Report, there is no information available.

Great Yarmouth is one of those unusual towns which almost completely changes its character during the months of June, July and August. As I understand it, the Commission has never even been near the town during this period. How, then, is it possible for it to form a judgment of this sort?

I am as anxious as is the hon. Gentleman that the Commissions should know all about a town before making recommendations. I must say that I would not accuse the Commissions of undue celerity in jumping to conclusions. They certainly spend a great deal of time visiting towns, and I do not want to encourage them to deepen their observations before reporting.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on how many occasions there has been a reduction in status of county boroughs with a population in excess of 52,000 to non-county boroughs.

None, Sir. Until 1958, such a change could take place only at the request of a county borough council. Since then, the Local Government Commission for England has had powers to make proposals of this kind and has done so in five famous instances. So far, none of them has been brought into effect.

Will the Minister at least promise to think most carefully and deeply before allowing this great Nelsonian town to become the first example?

We are a long way from that. The inquiry has not yet taken place, but I gather that it should be before next spring. However, I will give the hon. Gentleman one consolation, which is that, as far as I understand it, no county borough in the history of the country has been down-graded except at its specific request.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will revise Local Government Financial Statistics 1962–63, presented to Parliament in February, 1965, to take account of the latest information.

The Local Government Financial Statistics 1962–63 summarised the final accounts of local authorities for that year; thus no question of revision arises. The accounts for 1963–64 are now being tabulated, and will be published as soon as possible.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave a figure of £15 million for rateborne expenditure when he spoke on rates on 5th May? Is it not extremely important that really accurate figures should be quoted to this House, in view of the great importance of rate-borne expenditure, and its relation one year with another?

There tend to be accounting differences in the figures as they appear in local authority accounts and as they are paid out by us, but I quite agree that the more quickly the accounts are published the better.

But is it not important to have one series of figures, so that one year can be compared with another? A difference of £15 million is really rather excessive.

I am afraid that in local government statistics, as in other statistics, difficult discrepancies often appear that have to be reconciled before the full value of the figures can be assessed.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why ports such as Parkeston Quay, Harwich, are excluded from the assessment for payment of rates.

Because, on the basis of assessment upheld by the courts, they do not show a profit.

Is that not grossly unfair on a private enterprise port making a profit, next door to a British Rail port that does not? Can the Minister say what are the limited charges and facilities specially provided at Parkeston, and what figures have been allowed for renewals in the rating hypothesis?

These matters of valuation are for the Inland Revenue. I understand that there is an appeal pending, so that this matter is sub judice.

Is it not extraordinary that the reason that this quay does not pay rates is that it is not making a profit? If, in future a private business does not make a profit, will it be relieved of rates?

The position with regard to docks is different from that of other railway undertakings. Docks are treated especially under the Act of Parliament, and that is not a matter for my right hon. Friend.

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

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement detailing his proposals for the development of Warrington-Risley.

Since I made a statement to the House on 24th February, preliminary discussions have taken place with Lancashire County Council and Warrington County Borough Council. I hope very soon, with the agreement of the local planning authorities concerned, to appoint consultants to carry out a detailed study leading to proposals for the designation of a suitable area under the New Towns Act, and for the consequent planning to the whole Warrington area.

Has my right hon. Friend any idea how long these discussions will go on? Will he give consideration to discussions not only with Warrington and Lancashire, but also with the rural district and abutting urban district councils?

Certainly. District councils will, of course, be consulted. At present, we are making the main consultation that with Warrington because, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, this is a proposal for a doubling of the county borough and a new town where the county borough is deeply concerned. We are also consulting the county, since some of the area of the new town is outside the area of the county borough. In due course, when we have to consider the designation of sites, we shall consult all the local authorities concerned.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the cost of works of coast protection now being carried out by Bournemouth Corporation between Bournemouth and Boscombe piers; what application he has received from the local authority for Government aid in meeting this expenditure; and what grant is to be made available for the preservation of this area.

Works estimated to cost £73,600 are being carried out to stabilise the cliff. An application for grant under the Coast Protection Act, 1949, was refused in January, 1964, on the ground that the instability had not been caused by erosion or encroachment by the sea. In these circumstances, there is no power to pay grant.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of maintaining cliffs and protecting them from erosion falls heavily on the local rates? The beautiful areas of coasts and cliffs are surely a national beauty shared by so many that this should be a national liability. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that applications have been made to help in respect of the immense charges and costs for work between Bournemouth Pier and Boscombe Pier—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—

Perhaps the Minister could say if he is aware as far as we have got.

I recognise that there is a hardship and difficulty here. I am also told that the trouble here is that the damage to the cliffs is caused primarily by ground water inside the cliffs and it cannot be shown that it is in fact done by erosion by the sea. We have had our inspectors there. If the hon. Member is unhappy and not satisfied, I am willing to see him and a deputation of his people.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that for many years Bournemouth has boasted that it had the lowest rates in the country because it has failed to plough back enough money for the benefit of the community? Does he agree that Bournemouth should plough back some of the profits made from tourism instead of expecting the Government to subsidise its costs in this direction?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what consideration he has given to the expansion of Royston under the Expanded Towns Development Act.

My right hon. Friend appreciates the urban district council's wish to see its town expand, and he will be looking at this in the light of the review of the South East Study.

In the light of the great need to find more areas to which the population can go in the Home Counties, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that this is a town which is well served by road and rail and that there is an almost unanimous desire for expansion? Is he aware that it is about to start the modernisation of community services of a kind that the present size of the town will find it almost impossible to bear?

My right hon. Friend is well aware of the advantages of Royston and he hopes not to delay for too long a decision on this matter.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what schemes have been submitted to his department for improvements in amenities in the new town of Peterlee; and what decisions he has reached.

Since the Answer given to my right hon. Friend in November, 1964, my right hon. Friend the Minister has approved plans for playing fields, part of the sports and social centre in the northern part of the town, and for the extension of the existing golf course. He is considering proposals for an entertainments centre, to include bowling alley and cinema; for a town centre building to include halls for social activities and for the contribution by the development corporation towards the cost of providing a swimming bath.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this new town has been in existence now for 18 years and it is about time that reasonable amenities were provided? Will he encourage the Development Corporation to get on with the job?

I agree that the town very much needs these amenities, but my right hon. Friend is encouraged now that progress is being made by co-operation between the Corporation and the district council. He will certainly do all he can to facilitate it.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proportion of the Hertfordshire rate expenditure has been met by the general grant during each of the past five years; what proportion is estimated to be met by the general grant during the current year; and what proportion is forecast for next year.

As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

When the hon. Gentleman studies the figures I ask him to appreciate that, whilst the proportion of rate expenditure met by general grant in the country as a whole has remained absolutely stable, the proportion so met in rapidly expanding counties has greatly diminished. Will he bear in mind that, if this trend continues, by 1970 Hertfordshire will have fallen £3 million behind other counties, which is the equivalent of a 1s. rate? Will he consider giving a special weighting factor for rapidly expanding counties?

My right hon. Friend can never be accused of undue enthusiasm for the general grant. This is a matter which he will bear in mind in his general review of grant legislation.

Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary confirm that the figures he is about to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT represent approximately a 1 per cent. decrease regularly every year as compared with 55·1 per cent., which is the national average?

As far as I can tell by mental subtraction of the figures before me, that is correct.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will issue a circular to all river authorities requesting simplicity in their new application forms for the abstraction of water.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that Form W.R.5, issued by the river authorities, is complicated and if he will place a simplified version of this form in the Library.

On a point of order. Is it in order for a Member to read a newspaper?

I can only assume that it is immediately connected with the Question.

I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) yesterday.

I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that information. Yesterday the Minister got it wrong. It is not the Act that is wrong. It is the forms which are wrong. I am very grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for now dealing with the matter. It will cause a lot of rejoicing, at any rate in the South-West.

I do not follow the hon. Gentleman. I said that the forms spring from the provisions of the Act and the information required under the Act. This was made clear in the debate on the Regulations earlier this Session.

Will the Minister make it absolutely clear? Is he saying that he is withdrawing this form? If so, will he accept it from me that a great number of farmers will be extremely relieved by his decision, if that is his decision? Will he also say what he is proposing to put in its place? Will he give an assurance that whatever appears in place of this monstrous document is at least decipherable and understandable by those who have to fill it in?

The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The form will have completed its purpose by tomorrow, because under the Act the last day for applications for licences of right is tomorrow.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary cannot brush this aside. Does he intend to amend the other forms which are just as complicated and which will apply after 30th June? Can he do nothing whatever to alleviate the hardship of those who have had to try to fill these forms in by 30th June and who, because they have not been able to answer all these complicated questions, may lose their licences of right?

As to the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend is in touch with the river authorities and has sent them a circular asking them to treat sympathetically people who are out of time in their applications for licences of right. Under the Act passed by the Conservative Government it is not possible for the authorities to give a licence of right, but they can take a broad view about giving a permissive licence.

These forms are made necessary by the 1963 Act. The type of question asked on the form, namely, the amount of water used in 1961, 1962, and 1963, a period when no records were kept by agriculturists, for example, makes it absolutely nonsensical. Will my hon. Friend ensure that persons who have not answered these questions correctly will not be penalised in the matter of obtaining licences to use water?

I do not want to make any party point either about the Act or about the interpretation of the Act. This is a serious attempt to estimate water resources, of which there is a great shortage in the country. It is necessary, in order to find out how much water can be used in the future, to know what the demand is. That is the purpose behind the questions and behind the Act.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that under the present distribution formula the general grant contribution forms a diminishing proportion of the total budgets of rapidly expanding counties and that the situation will worsen next year; and if he will take steps to give financial assistance to such counties.

As the noble Lord knows, this matter is being considered as part of the Government's examination of local government finance. I must ask him to await the outcome.

How much longer have we to wait? Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication at all when he is likely to introduce a new system of distribution? In particular, can he tell us when he proposes to implement his categoric and now laughable pledge to reduce the rates?

My right hon. Friend is at the moment working out the details of his proposals. He will, of course, have to consult the local authority associations before he finalises them and then he will present them to the House.

If, as the hon. Gentleman indicated in answer to a previous Question, a substantial amount of income is being lost through the present distribution of the general grant to counties with rapidly expanding populations, will he do something about it now rather than spin out the time before he has actually to take some action?

Since the last Government lamentably failed to do anything about improving the form of the general grant, the sensible thing for my right hon. Friend to do is to have a proper scheme worked out before trying to amend the old rules.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under the present form of the general grant the 90,000 ratepapers of Bromley have to pay an extra £120,000 a year because of central charges put up by the Government since October?

The financial arrangements for Greater London largely spring from legislation passed by the previous Government.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in planning new towns, he will site them on or near the coast where they are needed to assist and increase Great Britain's export trade with appropriate transport services to them from production centres.

Many factors are considered in siting new towns; trade and good communication are among the most important.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that the Government should press on with this when the inland towns are so over-burdened? Would he not agree that it would be a good idea for him to develop seaside towns to provide outlets for people and to encourage our export trade?

We have thought of one or two. We are now doubling the size of Ipswich, which is not far distant from the sea. Leyland and Chorley can be said not to be far distant also, and Run-corn and Washington are adjacent to great ports.

asked the Minis-of Housing and Local Government what progress he has made with a scheme to make mortgages more readily available to those wishing to buy their own houses and/or to reduce mortgage interest rates.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress he has made in his discussions on the action he proposes to take to make mortgages more readily available to those wishing to buy their own houses.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he can now make a statement on progress in preparing his schemes to reduce interest rates for council houses and for houses to be bought for owner-occupation.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress he is making towards easing the shortage of mortgage funds for house purchase and towards lowering the interest rate charged in respect of such mortgages.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he proposes to take to assist existing home purchasers currently paying off their mortgages.

In debate on 29th April I made my view plain that both the relief of the interest burden on local housing authorities and steps to help owner-occupiers would have to take their place in a national housing plan, for which I would be developing proposals in the course of the summer. I am not yet in a position to make a further statement on this.

As interest rates are now running at between 6¾ per cent. and 7 per cent., has the Minister made any assessment of the cost of this subsidy to the Exchequer if there is a reduction in mortgage interest?

Yes. This is one of the calculations we have been doing in preparation for the plan.

Whatever my right hon. Friend's long-term plan may be, since some building societies keep their reserves liquid to as much as twice the percentage that they are permitted by law to do, will he not make some inquiry and use such influence as he has to have a shot at getting these building societies to release more money down to the level of their legal permission?

The proposal in the second part of my hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question—the Merrett-Sykes proposal, as it is usually called—is one that we are considering. As for the first part, the Government, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, do not control the lending policies of the building societies. Though it is true, as he says, that, on average, it is fair to say that their liquidity ratio is about 14 per cent. as against the minimum of 7 per cent., the freedom to make these decisions rests at the moment with the building societies themselves.

Will the Minister give the result of the calculation to which he referred when replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. William Clark)? Can he also assure the House that any improvements that he makes in arrangements for borrowers will relate back to, at any rate, this year, so that people shall not be discouraged, despite difficulties, in trying to take up mortgages now?

I should require notice of the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I shall be delighted to answer him if he will put down a Question. As to the second part, I am not prepared to discuss our intentions while they are under consideration.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that up to a few weeks ago there was an almost complete blockage of new mortgage money in the Tyneside area? I made a personal check with the leading building societies in the City of Newcastle. I appreciate that the position is now easing a little, but will my right hon. Friend treat the matter with some urgency? Owner-occupiers have had to put up with too many difficulties for too long, especially during the administration of the party opposite.

We have, of course, every sympathy with owner-occupiers, and I am relieved to hear my hon. Friend confirm that the reduction of Bank Rate and the situation since has somewhat eased things for the building societies. It remains true that there are difficulties. What we would hope for is an improvement in the situation so that deposits will continue to advance in the building societies.

Is not the building societies' difficulty that the value of their reserves is now far less than when the Socialist Government came in?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, when considering preferential rates of interest to house purchasers through building societies, he will take into account the position of those who are borrowers from local authorities at fixed rates as high as 7¾ per cent.

I do not know of any local authority that is currently asking for as high an interest rate as this on house purchase advances. But I certainly intend to take into account the position of people who borrow from local authorities.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was not concerned with current borrowing? May I have an assurance from him that all borrowers, whether old or new, will be treated alike by the Government in accordance with the true principles of Socialist democracy?

I tried to answer the Question on the Order Paper, which was quite a different one.

When preparing his plans for future borrowers, to which we are looking forward very much, will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the German system, under which the first, say, £1,000 of the loan is completely interest-free, thus avoiding giving big subsidies to those buying mansions and luxury flats?

On a previous Question I was asked whether I would take into consideration the various methods. I can say that we shall take into consideration all the possible methods before we decide between them.

Will not the Minister at any rate answer the Question on the Order Paper, which is whether his proposals in respect of mortgage rates will take into account those who borrow through local authorities?

The answer is,"Yes".

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he has for legislation to deal with the under-occupancy of council houses.

Most local authorities do their best to ensure that their tenants are in accommodation which is suited to their needs and my right hon. Friend does not think legislation is necessary.

Has the Ministry given any general directive to councils as to the way in which they should deal with this problem?

I refer my hon. Friend to the Milner Holland Committee's Report, which gave figures collected in 1963 from local authorities in the London area showing that 10 per cent. of dwellings were under-occupied and 7 per cent. were overcrowded. The Milner Holland Committee said that the figures showed a high degree of skill on the part of those responsible for local authority housing. I do not think my right hon. Friend needs to interfere in local authority housing matters.

Do I understand from the main Answer that it is the continued policy of this Government to subsidise houses which are grossly under-occupied?

It is the policy of this Government not to tell local authorities how they should manage their own affairs.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, had the last Government pursued a serious policy over municipal housing, they would have been able to produce sufficient houses to ensure that the homeless were housed and there would be no under-occupancy of houses as at present?

My right hon. Friend intends to encourage local authorities to build more houses for renting.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will give an estimate of the number of dwellings made available to let during the last 12 months, excluding those provided by local authorities.

I regret that adequate information is not available.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House in two successive Parliaments have pressed for this information and that there is a serious lacuna in statistical records? If he cannot give the exact figures, surely with the help of local authorities, and possibly of the Board of Inland Revenue, some estimate can be given?

It is known that since the 1957 Rent Act the number of dwellings made available for rented purposes has decreased by something around 1 million. We agree that lack of information in this and many other fields of housing is very important, and my right hon. Friend is doing what he can to see that our statistical information is improved.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when such information, which plainly is highly germane to discussion, among other things, of rent restriction, will be available?

I cannot say off the cuff, but I can tell the right hon. Member that the information available is based on the 1961 census. The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) is on a good point. We ought to have better statistical information and we are trying to get just that.

Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to study the evidence by Ruth Glass to the Milner Holland Committee, in which she gave some calculations of the inter-censal change in the number of rented properties in Greater London? Could those techniques be used to give at least some idea of changes currently taking place?

I think the hon. Member is quite right. The person to whom he referred has created a basis for the sort of work which could be done. When the House is given information it is entitled to be given it with certainty.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce legislation to enable private landlords to install minimal sanitary facilities in their properties with or without the consent of the tenants.

My right hon. Friend will bear this suggestion in mind, but his present view is that compulsory improvement should remain the responsibility of local authorities.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we want to encourage good landlords and if, as in many cases, it is the tenant who resists a decent improvement a good landlord is completely frustrated?

Yes, but tenants have certain rights in the matter and they cannot be taken away from them. There is, for example, the case of the elderly person who does not want a house to be altered in any way. Many factors are involved and previous Governments as well as this Government have taken the view that tenants have certain rights. I agree that landlords also have certain rights to have improvements made. However, by means of better education of tenants we might be able to get something done.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that resistance by tenants to improvement of their homes both by private and public landlords is becoming one of the major obstacles to the improvement of rural housing? Will he look at this matter again sympathetically because I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King) is on a good point?

It would be fair to say that most of the tenants I have dealt with have been only too grateful for any improvements which have been suggested, but one gets the odd case in which a tenant will not have improvements done. If we can help by education we shall do so, but not by law.

Is not the resistance to improvement coming, not from tenants, but from landlords? In spite of the increased help given under the 1963 Act, they are still resisting improvements and, in the view of many of us, landlords outside improvement areas should also be subject to compulsion to make necessary improvements.

Under the 1964 Act authorities can compel owners to improve tenanted dwellings and areas in which there are tenanted blocks. It is true that certain tenants will not allow certain things to be done and this is a field for investigation.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) specifically emphasised rural districts where conditions are rather different in many cases from those with which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are familiar?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what correspondence he has had recently with landowners and property developers concerning leasehold enfranchisement; and if he will give an assurance that the legislation he will introduce will enfranchise all leaseholders without exemptions.

As I mentioned in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on 17th May, I invited a number of landlords to send me their comments on leasehold enfranchisement. I have now had replies from most of these, including public and private landlords and also charitable trusts. In addition, I have received representations from a number of other interests, including professional bodies. These comments will be of assistance in formulating proposals for legislation, but I cannot of course anticipate those proposals.

When will the White Paper on this matter be available? Will the gist of the information which has been given to my right hon. Friend by the bodies he mentioned be contained in that White Paper? Will he give an assurance that this legislation, to which we on this side attach a very deal of importance, will be introduced next Session and that it will be an implementation of our election pledge?

I should like to have advance notice as to whether I shall put all the information which we get from these rather extensive replies into a White Paper. I should not have thought that there was validity in putting it all in a White Paper, although there is nothing secret about it. As to the nature of the proposals and the timing of the White Paper, I have nothing to add to what I said on the last occasion I was asked. I then said that when we had dealt with the Rent Bill my Department would go on to deal with leasehold enfranchisement. We are just about dealing with the Rent Bill and we are grappling with leasehold enfranchisement. We have done a lot of work on it already, but I cannot make any statement about dates.

As this legislation was also mentioned in the Queen's Speech, can the right hon. Gentleman say, aye or no, whether it is intended to introduce it this Session?

I can say that it depends on when the Session ends. Unless the Session is more prolonged than I expect, I would expect to see some postponement of my intention in that regard.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the unsatisfactory nature of peripheral overspill as a solution to Manchester's housing problem; and if he will give an undertaking that Manchester's future requirements beyond the present phase will be dealt with by way of new towns.

I quite agree that unlimited peripheral development is not a satisfactory way of meeting Manchester's overspill needs. I have, however, already proposed two new developments under the New Towns Acts to help Manchester and its neighbours. If these proposals and other schemes planned by the city council are put into effect, the overspill requirements should be met for some time to come.

May I have a firm answer to at any rate one of my two questions? Will the right hon. Gentleman say that peripheral development as a means of catering for the future problems of Manchester is not to be considered?

It would be impossible to give an assurance to the hon. Member that no kind of peripheral development will be allowed in the next 20 years. I should like to say that, but it is impossible to prevent things these days. I believe that it is wrong to plan in terms of close satellite towns or the mere spreading of the conurbation. That is why we have announced the Leyland-Chorley decision which is well away. Manchester, from this point of view, has not been very well treated, because the two positive proposals are not ideally situated there. In a sense they are semi-peripheral and are not very satisfactory but they were the best that could be found, and one of them was of Manchester's own selection.

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that many people in Manchester and Salford would still like peripheral development, particularly in Cheshire, where there is still a possibility of a site for a new town within reach of Manchester and in an area which is easily capable of development?

It depends what one means by "peripheral". When one gets as far as Cheshire I would say that one is getting into an area which is only semi-peripheral at best.