asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he rejected the recommendation of his inspector on the appeal by Galliford Estates Limited with regard to the density of houses to be permitted on an overspill development at Mill Lane, Sandy.

It is essential to make the best use of building land, and my right hon. Friend was satisfied that an increase in density from six houses to 10 houses an acre would not prevent the establishment of a balanced community. The appeal was rejected because the site merited a high standard of design and the proposed housing layout was not of a quality which my right hon. Friend could endorse.

Yes, but if the Minister wants to encourage overspill, as he presumably does, why, against his own inspector's advice, will be not pay attention to the considered views of the local authorities, both county and urban authorities, concerned? Is this not the way directly to discourage any other comparable small town from making a contribution of this kind?

The hon. Gentleman may not fully understand the planning processes—

I understand them very well.

The original decision here, which was taken by the local authority, was then examined at a public inquiry. Certain recommendations were made by the inspector. It is then my right hon. Friend's duty to evaluate those recommendations and come to his conclusions. That is what he has done in this case.

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

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his latest estimate of the number of new houses on which work will be begun during the course of 1969.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses he now expects to be completed in the current year.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his latest estimate of how the total of completed houses in 1969 will compare with the number of houses completed in 1968.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to announce a new house building target.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) what is his latest estimate of the number of new houses on which work will be begun during the course of 1969;

So far as a possible target is concerned, I have repeatedly made clear that I want to see the largest number of houses completed each year which economic circumstances will permit. The out-turn for 1969 will depend in large part on the success that the building societies have in attracting adequate mortgage finance. The results in the public sector in 1969 should not be very different from those in 1968. Overall, I do not expect any dramatic change in 1969 compared with 1968.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give his latest estimate of the number of new houses on which work will begin during 1969?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is unusual at this stage of the year to give a firm estimate of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have made it perfectly clear that the outcome will be very much the same as last year. It will be about the same in the public sector, although it may be slightly down in the private sector.

How can the right hon. Gentleman say that the outcome will be about the same as last year when the number of starts is so very much down compared with last year? Why is he ensuring that there will be so many fewer houses when the demand is growing so greatly? Does not this state of affairs finally dispel any faith one might have had in the promises by which the Labour Party came to power?

No, Sir. It is true that the number of starts at the beginning of the year was a little disappointing, but there were a number of reasons for that. It was partly due to the weather, partly because of the effects of Ronan Point and partly because of the bunching of approvals in the last quarter.

Will not the Minister be frank with the House and admit that completions in the first quarter were 20 per cent. down and that mortgage advances were £70 million down on the same quarter of last year? Do not these figures indicate that we will not reach 400,000 new houses, let alone the 500,000 promised by hon. Gentlemen opposite at the last General Election?

I know that the hon. Gentleman, like so many of his hon. Friends, is longing to take a gloomy view of the situation. The statistics do not confirm what they say, although, as I have said, it is too early in the year to be precise. The House will remember the bitter opposition from hon. Gentlemen opposite when building societies increased their interest rate to make more money available for the building of private houses.

What do the Government intend to do to stop Conservative-controlled councils from cutting down the number of houses being built? As I do not share the optimistic view of my right hon. Friend in this matter, may I ask him to say what additional emergency measures he intends to take in the private sector to ensure that the feared fall in the number of houses being built does not materialise this year and next year?

In the private sector everything depends on there being an adequate inflow of money to the building societies. The latest statements from the building societies show that the reaction to the interest rate increase has been rather more encouraging than might at first have seemed. The public sector is a matter which is the direct responsibility of the local authorities concerned; and no doubt my hon. Friends and members of the public will know exactly what action to take in this respect.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many thousands of families living in houses thank the Lord that we do not have a Tory Government?

Since the Minister is blaming everybody except the Government for the terrible decline in the house building programme, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that as the Prime Minister made a firm pledge that the Government would build 500,000 houses a year by 1970 no matter what the circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to explain to the House why that pledge is being broken?

Once again, the hon. Gentleman is somewhat out of date. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Although I enjoy listening to him regurgitating those old speeches, I am sure that he knows that a statement was made in the House in January, 1968, emphasising that the 500,000 target could not be reached because of devaluation. I repeat what I said earlier; that I do not see any drastic change in the situation this year.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what recent evidence he has received from the Federation of Registered Housebuilders regarding the expected state of trade in 1969; and what action he proposes to take in the light of that evidence.

On 24th March, the Federation of Registered Housebuilders stated that their February, 1969, State of Trade Inquiry made it seem likely that no more houses would be started or completed in the private sector in 1969 than in 1968. I have regular discussions with the builders, building societies and local authorities about housing prospects, when this and other evidence is brought under review.

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the number of private house completions this year to exceed the 1964 figure?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been here when we discussed this earlier at Question Time.

I was.

The point about the house Federation's inquiry is that it took place before the increase in building society interest rates and the situation has changed since then. This afternoon I am holding talks with the building societies, the builders and the local authorities, when I shall be in a position better to evaluate the results of the survey conducted in February.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what report he has received from the District Auditor of the Metropolitan District regarding overspending on housing schemes in 1967–68 by the direct labour department of the London Borough of Hammersmith; and whether he will make a statement.

In his interim report to the council on its 1966–67 accounts, the district auditor listed five schemes undertaken by the council's building department which had resulted in overspending during 1967–68. One scheme was for an old people's home; the rest for housing. Of these four schemes, three still showed savings compared with the next lowest tender. The fifth scheme was an ingenious, but untested, high density development which was authorised as a pilot scheme.

Will not the Minister admit that this shows further expenditure totalling about £83,000? Would it not be wise to revise Circular 50/66 in relation to the whole question of instructions governing direct labour for local authorities?

The former Hammersmith council took immediate steps to obtain advice on how to improve its direct labour department. Unfortunately the present council has not followed that advice and is not taking any steps to improve the department.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is satisfied with the speed at which the machinery set up under the Leasehold Reform Act to enable leaseholders to acquire their freeholds is now working; and if he will make a statement.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, most cases are settled by agreement, between the parties. If there are delays in the handling of cases before the Lands Tribunal, I will gladly look into them, and if my hon. Friend has evidence of unwarrantable delays, I should be glad to have particulars.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many leaseholders are being told by their solicitors that it might take years for their cases to come before the Lands Tribunal and when they come before it they will probably gain very little because of the way decisions by the Tribunal appear to be going? Could he say why the Act does not appear to treat leasholders as favourably as it was originally claimed it would?

There have been only two decisions so far. As I have said in answer to my hon. Friend, if he will produce particular cases in which there is delay my right hon. Friend will certainly see what he can do to improve the position.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that there is much dissatisfaction with the operation of this Act in Wales and that many leaseholders are reluctant to go to the Lands Tribunal because recent decisions tend to give the impression that the dice is loaded in favour of the freeholder? Therefore, will he take an early opportunity to amend the Act and to introduce proposals to swing the balance back in favour of the leaseholder?

My right hon. Friend is aware of the feeling on this matter. He is looking into it to see if anything, and what, could be done to improve the position.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made towards the goal of 50 per cent. owner-occupation in new towns.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 24th April. As far as new building is concerned, builders are showing an increasing interest in the opportunities offered in new towns.—[Vol. 782, c. 120–21.]

Does the Minister realise that in London new towns, apart from Bracknell where 100 per cent. of the rented houses are available for sale, only 6 per cent. in the remaining new town are available for sale? How can he achieve 50 per cent. home ownership if only 6 per cent. are available for sale?

As the hon. Member knows, this is a relatively new policy and London new towns for the most part were first generation new towns. They are anxious to move in the direction that the policy announcement indicates and the question of sale of their houses is under discussion between them and the Department.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what representations have been made to him by the Greater London Council on the effect on London ratepayers of his decision to reject the council's proposals for altering the structure of council house rents; and what reply he has sent.

On 24th April the council sent me a letter, advancing a number of arguments and asking for a meeting to discuss them. I have arranged to meet the council next week.

I am grateful for that reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to allow the local authority to proceed according to the mandate it has received from the people who elected it?

I have to operate within the terms of the Prices and Incomes Act which give me power to intervene in cases of this kind. I proposed a method of dealing with the situation facing the G.L.C. which I believed would avoid rent increases.

Is it not grossly unfair to ratepayers in Croydon, who were pushed into London, that they have to pay more rates to the G.L.C. merely because economic rents are not being charged by the G.L.C.?

Croydon ratepayers were pushed into London by the Conservative Government. There is no question of an increased burden on the rates. I suggested to the G.L.C. that a greater amount of capital expenditure should be charged to loan. At the moment, the proportion of G.L.C. expenditure which is met from revenue is exceptionally high. I am absolutely convinced that the method which I have proposed to the G.L.C. will avoid both an increase in rents and any burden on the ratepayers.

Did not a report yesterday show that for many years Kensington Council has failed to discharge its housing responsibilities for Notting Hill? Therefore, is not central Government initiative essential, and should not a much more comprehensive attack be made on the problems of urban renewal?

My hon. Friend will agree that that goes very wide of the Question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the G.L.C. that rent increases should be deferred and that loans should be taken at what would be, as a result of Government policy, a penal rate of interest?

That is one of the propositions which have been put to the House in the past and which has been approved by the House. In this case, it is open to the council to decide which course to adopt in order to avoid rent increases. If it decides to put up the rates, unnecesarily in my view, that is its decision and not mine.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) what is the subsidy available to a head of household earning £22 a week and buying his house through the option mortgage scheme; and what is the average subsidy provided in respect of an average family with the same income in a newly built council house, expressed in weekly terms;

It is impossible to give a valid comparison between the two subsidies in the terms laid out by the hon. Member because the Question starts from an erroneous assumption, that Exchequer subsidy is calculated on the householder's income. For a general assessment of the relative cost, both on average and in total, of housing subsidy and mortgage interest relief, I would refer him to the two replies given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Land on 20th December last to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris).—[Vol. 775, c. 510–11.]

Would it not be better to subsidise the families and not the houses? Does this way of spending public money provide a fair basis of competition with private enterprise?

My right hon. Friend has always encouraged, and continues to encourage, local authorities to use their subsidy by a rebate scheme to help families who need assistance most.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many acres of land have been sold for housing by the Land Commission; and what was the average price per acre.

2·2 acres; £13,423.

Does that include the case at Mudeford, near Christchurch, where 1½ acres were sold for £48,000? Is the Minister satisfied that the Land Commission is providing land for housing at reasonable costs, which was promised as a result of the Land Commission Act?

According to my list, the site to which the hon. Gentleman referred is not included. I am well satisfied that when the acquisition and sale policy gets into its stride, which I hope will be in the current year, the Land Commission will be able to provide land for housing at reasonable prices.

But the Commission has been in operation for just over two years. The great justification for it was that it would bring forward land for housing. It has brought forward only 2·2 acres over two years. Is it not time to abolish it?

The hon. Gentleman, with his political and professional experience, knows perfectly well that land acquisition is a very long-winded process. Furthermore, the reason why the start has been slower than we hoped has been explained on a number of occasions by me in our many recent debates on the Land Commission.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what were the reasons which led him to curtail the size of the council housing programme of the Sevenoaks Rural District Council.

The Council was allowed to proceed with its programme after it had fully explained the case for two additional schemes.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great shortage of land for building purposes since most of the area available to the local council is in the Metropolitan green belt? Will he use his good offices with the G.L.C., which has 800 houses in the area, to see whether, when any of these houses fall vacant, they cannot be given to people who have grown up on the G.L.C. estate and have then got married instead of these people having to go on the rural district council's housing list?

I know that there are problems in relation to the overspill, but I am sure that the G.L.C. and the local authority will co-operate. My right hon. Friend will do his best to facilitate such co-operation.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement on future planning policy in the South-East.

This must await completion of the comprehensive planning study of the South-East now being undertaken by a joint central and local government team led by the Ministry's chief planner.

Is it not discouraging to those who worked so hard to produce the South-East Study to find that there is to be this further delay? Will it now be possible to have a co-ordinated study of the South-East before a decision is made about the siting of a third London Airport either at Foulness or at an inland site?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that it was generally agreed that this further study was necessary. I hope that it will be completed by the spring of next year.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the urgency of this matter in view of the complex housing, industrial, airport and other problems which are becoming ever more pressing in this part of the country?

Yes, Sir. We recognise the urgency of the matter, but it is most important to get the right answers. For this reason a team has been appointed; and it is getting on with the job as fast as possible.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT those local authorities whose proposed rent reorganisation schemes have been rejected by him.

Under the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968, 172 local authorities have submitted 183 proposals for rent increases to which my right hon. Friend has been unable to agree. I will, with permission, circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman intends to publish the list. Would he agree that it will give ratepayers fair warning that the only alternative to reorganised rent schemes is the inevitability of higher rates next year?

No, Sir. I emphatically reject that suggestion. [Interruption.] Most of the authorities had obvious scope for breaking down balances or, in a few cases, for restricting capital expenditure to revenue. Except in a few cases, we have not expected authorities to increase their rate fund contributions. We have done so only where there was no other way of keeping their rent increases within the limits set by the Prices and Incomes Board.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps to set up a National Refuse Corporation aimed at co-ordinating the recovery of household refuse, rubber tyres, scrap, mining tips, and other forms of refuse; and what studies have been made of the uses of various forms of refuse and the economies to be achieved by their recovery.

I will send my hon. Friend available information about past studies. The working party on refuse disposal, which my right hon. Friend set up in 1967, is now making a broad study which covers the question of recovery. In the meantime I do not think that the setting up of a centralised body in this field is desirable.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the present haphazard method of collecting industrial and household refuse is a national scandal? Is he aware that if waste were collected and retrieved on an organised national scale there would be a saving of many millions of £s to the economy?

I am well aware that considerable improvement could and should be made in many parts of the country. For this reason my right hon. Friend has set up a working party.

Is the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend opposed to dustmen selling direct?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England will be published.

I understand that the Commission's Report will be published soon after Whitsun.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that reports are appearing with great regularity in the Press purporting to describe what is in the Maud Committee's Report? Considering the embarrassment that this must be causing to his Ministry, will he take steps with the Stationery Office to expedite the printing of the Report so that we shall know what is actually in it and not what is alleged to be in it?

I share the anxiety of the hon. Member about the reports which may or may not be correct, which I know create an atmosphere of uncertainty. The actual machinery for publication of the Report is under the direction of the Royal Commission itself. We have emphasised to the Stationery Office the need for ensuring that there is no unnecessary delay in publication. I believe that immediately after Whitsuntide is the earliest date when this will be possible.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is satisfied that local authorities are fully using the powers given to them by his Regulations to avoid fire risk in houses in multiple occupation; and if he will make a statement.

I believe that local authorities in general make good use where necessary of their powers to require means of escape in multi-occupied houses. Provisions in the Housing Bill will add to these powers and make it the duty of local authorities to inspect their districts to see whether action is necessary. I will gladly consider carefully any cases of which my hon. Friend may know where it appears that effective use of the powers is not being made.

May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and say how pleased I am that this matter is being looked into? Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot afford to be complacent about it? Is not one of the things which need attention, particularly in houses in multiple occupation, the inappropriate means of heating often used that cause some of these fires and the lack of means of escape, as we know by the deaths of children and people who cannot jump to get out of a building? Is this not a matter that needs looking into?

The Housing Bill deals with means of escape from fire. On the general question of fire protection, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a working party looking into this matter.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in 1960 a number of children were burned to death because of faulty oil heaters at Ware in Hertfordshire, and that there was an exact reproduction of that case in Birmingham in the week before last when a number of children were burned to death due to a faulty oil heater? Is not amending legislation required to raise standards of efficiency for all portable and mobile heaters used in multi-occupied houses?

Any houses.

I have sympathy with what the hon. Member has said. As to the immediate Housing Bill, which is the responsibility of the Minister, means of escape from fire are being considered to see whether they can be improved, especially in regard to enforcement and inspection.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in view of the fact that there are no swimming facilities for the children in the Mexborough and Swinton Urban District Council's areas, if he will make a financial grant to both these authorities so that swimming baths can be provided.

This type of expenditure attracts rate support grant. My right hon. Friend has no power to make a specific grant.

Does not my hon. Friend realise that a great many lives are lost, especially in summertime, because children are not able to swim? Is he aware not only that these two local authorities cannot provide facilities, but that neither can many others? Will he do something to make sure that close to their homes children have facilities to learn to swim?

There are a large number of schemes coming forward all the time for the provision of swimming baths, and permission is being given for these as rapidly as possible in accordance with the resources available. If the officials of the two authorities mentioned by my hon. Friend would like to consult my Department, we would be pleased to help in any way we can.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the obiter dicta in the Court of Appeal in the case of Young versus Greater London Council, he will send a circular to dissuade local authorities which use their own employees for valuing property which they acquire compulsorily from presenting evidence to the courts in such a way as to minimise the compensation payable; and if he will seek powers to control the valuation practices of local authorities.

No, Sir.

Has the right hon. Gentleman not read the judgment and seen that this Machiavellian intrigue was described by Lord Justice Russell as having as its sole purpose to ensure that private citizens should secure the minimum compensation possible?

It is not the first time that the hon. Member has sought under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege to question the professional integrity of the Greater London Council's valuers. I have read the account of the case and it is certainly my view, whatever the hon. Member may say, that it is not at all clear that the court found any fault with the council's actions. The court found in favour of the council.

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

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in view of the high rate of unemployment in the Mexborough Employment Exchange Area, he will reconsider his decision not to grant planning permission to the Bessacarr Caravans Company to erect additional buildings which are required for the completion and the storage of caravans, which are being built for exports.

My right hon. Friend has no power to change a decision on an appeal once it is issued.

Does my hon. Friend realise that that decision was one of the most foolish I have ever known? Is he aware that this area is an old coal-mine tip and that this company wanted to erect buildings to provide accommodation for its completed caravans, which would not mean any additional area for the company? Will he have another look at the problem, as there is high unemploy- ment in the area and something must be done in a matter of this kind?

I know that many planning decisions create a feeling of hardship and difficulty for the people concerned, but my right hon. Friend has a duty to consider the findings of the report of his inspector and to come to a decision which he thinks right.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he now has for exercising his powers under the Land Commission Act, 1967, for exempting certain transactions from the betterment levy.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what consultations he has had with the Chairman of the Land Commission about changes in the operation of the betterment levy; and what has been the result of the discussions.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will take steps to ensure that betterment levy is not payable in cases where no actual profits have been made.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will declare a moratorium, by legislation or otherwise, on the payment of betterment levy under the Land Commission Act.

The Government's proposals for modifications to the betterment levy were set out in the White Paper published on 15th April and proposals for legislation are included in the Finance Bill.

That is not an unexpected reply. Would the Minister note that, unless he makes the concession retrospective, he will leave a legacy of bitterness among those suffering under the Act?

I dealt with this matter, as far as I was able to make myself heard, in the debate on 28th April.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree or disagree with Sir Henry Wells, the Chairman of the Land Commission, that it is possible administratively to pay back to people what has wrongly been taken from them under a totally bad law?

That is not what Sir Henry Wells said. All that he said was that, as far as the Land Commission was concerned, although there would be administrative difficulties, they would not be insuperable. But it is not the question of administrative difficulties which has led to the Government's decision, nor are the difficulties confined to the Commission. There are even more serious administrative difficulties for the Inland Revenue.

Is the Minister aware that he has not satisfactorily answered my Question? Is it not absolutely absurd to charge a betterment levy when no profits have been taken?

No; it would be much more profitable to discuss these matters in detail, as we shall soon have the opportunity of doing, on the Finance Bill.

Have not the Government's concessions created new injustices? Therefore, will the Government suspend the levy retrospectively until a Conservative Administration, pledged to its abolition, can clear up the mess?

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we believe that he should give careful consideration to certain cases, especially when it has taken a long time to obtain planning permission? I am thinking of a case in which planning permission took two years. The betterment levy has been charged since the Act came into force. Would my right hon. Friend have another look at cases like the one I have in mind?

I have looked at one or two cases like that. Whether I have looked at the one to which my hon. Friend refers, I am not sure. If he would write to me about it, I will consider it.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has yet received the Lloyd Thomas report on financial and management con- trol in local authority direct labour departments; and when he proposes to publish it.

I have received the report and a meeting has been arranged with the local authority associations to discuss arrangements for publication.

Why did the Minister find it necessary in 1965 to abolish restraints on direct labour and two-and-a-half years later form a working party to try to make direct labour more efficient? Does he recollect that on 18th February he said that the report would be ready within a matter of weeks? Eleven weeks have elapsed and the House is still awaiting it?

Eleven weeks is a matter of weeks. I was not Minister of Housing and Local Government in 1965. When a matter is the subject of public debate, it is right that informed opinion should be available so that members of the public can make up their minds. I am a strong believer in direct labour departments, but I believe it essential that they should operate at the maximum pitch of efficiency.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on criticising the Great Yarmouth County Borough Council for turning down the lowest tender which came from its direct labour department and choosing a private contractor in its place. Will he send instructions to all councils throughout the country to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen and he is not forced to intervene in this way in many other places?

My hon. Friend will understand that I have not power to do as he wishes, but I have no doubt that what he has said will be widely noted.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will circulate local authorities and new town corporations on the use of district heating schemes to cover whole towns or large sections of towns and advise these authorities on the use of household refuse as a major fuel for such district heating schemes.

The Departments concerned are currently examining the future possibilities of district heating, including the use of refuse as a fuel particularly in the context of major new developments. At present, therefore, my right hon. Friend is not in a position to issue general guidance on the subject.

Will my hon. Friend urgently consider what further steps could be taken, in conjunction with the Ministry of Power, to encourage district heating in general and district heating based on refuse in particular? Will he at least ensure that new town authorities introduce district heating schemes based on some type of refuse usage?

The possibility of using district heating schemes at Milton Keynes and Northampton will be considered by my Department and the corporation.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of local authorities are introducing provisions to give themselves power for district heating in Private Bills during the present Session and that there will probably be an even bigger queue next year? Will he consider introducing national legislation so that we can have a uniform framework for adequate protection of the rights of the consumer?

The attitude of the House towards this legislation and the experience under it if it is passed will be valuable assistance in achieving effective national legislation.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what representations have been made to him to the latest convenient date about the operation of the Land Commission; and what reply he has sent.

I have had a number of representations from hon. Members and from the general public, to which I have sent appropriate replies. There have been seven debates on the Land Commission this year and a White Paper was issued on 15th April on "Modifications in Betterment Levy".

Since the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that this is a very unjust business, why is he being so "wet" about it now? Why not be as strong as the Secretary of State for Social Services was yesterday when he faced the facts of the situation and went back on previous policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman not indulge in some retrospective legislation in this case?

Since I have not acknowledged what the hon. Gentleman has alleged that I have acknowledged, the second part of his supplementary question regarding my humidity does not therefore arise.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that attempts to abate levies and taxation on totally unearned increments of wealth and property of this kind would be unwelcome to this side of the House?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he intends taking to assist the Civic Trust, local authorities and other bodies in their efforts to prevent the spoilation of beaches by the removal of sand.

The Coast Protection Act enables maritime local authorities to submit for my right hon. Friend's confirmation orders prohibiting the excavation of materials from the seashore to protect the coast against sea erosion. In addition, the removal of sand from a beach without planning permission constitutes an offence. These powers appear adequate and it is not thought that further special action is requires.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the private ownership of some beaches in Northumberland is leading to the removal of an excessive amount of earth and sand? It is no use letting this situation go on at the same time as the Government are paying grants to beautify the area.

This is the sort of case where the local authority will have considered a revocation order. If my hon. Friend will get in touch with us about this we shall be glad to give such advice as we can.

In view of the consideration raised by the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne), and other equally vital considerations, is there not a strong case for seeing that all beaches, whether at high or low water mark, are brought into public ownership?

There is a case for moving along the lines of the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). In fact, this was part, although only part, of the matters investigated by the Maritime Conference.