URBAN CONGESTION AND GREEN BELT AREAS

HL Deb 29 June 1955 vol 193 cc348-94

2.39 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to move to resolve, That full use should be made of the powers provided by the Town Development Act, 1952, in order to relieve congestion in overcrowded urban areas, and that at the same time green belts should be established to prevent the further sprawl of large cities into the countryside. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure all your Lordships will agree that the debate on housing which we had on Wednesday of last week was not only of great use in itself but, by good fortune, was also an extremely useful prelude to the debate we are to have to-day on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in my name. Last week's Motion concerned housing in quantity. To-day's Motion, although it has no direct reference to housing, is concerned entirely with the quality of housing. As your Lordships will have seen, my Motion specifies two objectives: first, to relieve congestion in overcrowded urban areas, and secondly, to establish green belts to prevent further urban sprawl.

I am perfectly certain there are no two general propositions which, in theory, could command more universal support in every quarter of the House, but unfortunately it is equally true, I think, that there are no two propositions which encounter greater difficulties in their practical execution. It is about some of these difficulties that I want to talk to your Lordships to-day. They are difficulties which have bedevilled town and country planning ever since town and country planning was first talked of. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, postulated 6 million houses in twenty years. I think the noble Lord was simply doing a little sum in simple arithmetic: twenty times 300,000 makes 6 million. I want to engage your Lordships' attention to-day on this question: where are these 6 million houses to be put?

The first point I want to emphasise is that in looking at the quality of housing, more particularly of a house which is to be a family home, the first consideration is, not the size but the environment, where the house is to be put. Of the applicants on housing lists for new accommodation, 90 per cent., we are told, want a house and garden. I believe that to be an under-statement, and that the real figure is 95 per cent.; but I want to be moderate so I will put it at 90 per cent. The position has been exactly the same ever since I first had anything to do with housing, and that is now more than thirty years ago. People want a house and garden. And how right they are! They want somewhere to get out; they want somewhere private to get out; somewhere to play. They want somewhere where they can go to relieve family tension. I believe that as a family home, particularly where there are small children, a flat in a multi-storeyed block is, and always will be, a second best.

That is the positive side of what I want to say, but there is an important negative side, too. It is a point I have mentioned once or twice in your Lordships' House, and I have never failed to receive a sympathetic murmur of agreement. We want not only to get the best, but to prevent the worst; and the worst is what I may call the urbanisation of our population. It is a dreadful thing to have the population of the towns cut off from the country. London is a grand place to live in, if you can get out of it; it is not so good if you have to go a long tube journey merely to see a glimpse of the real countryside. Therefore, I say that our object must be to check the growth of the population in the urban agglomerations; and, better still, if we can, to reduce it. That means that we should encourage the creation of houses elsewhere—anti what I mean by "elsewhere" I shall come to in a moment.

I do not think I need assure your Lordships that this Motion is friendly to the Government. I would recall to your Lordships two recent statements by the Minister. He made a specific promise to what are called receiving local authorities, under the Town Development Act, 1952, to bear 50 per cent. of the cost of the water and sewerage services, and also to give further help, if necessary, after the first ten years. That was a valuable promise, because up to then the situation was slightly vague. Secondly, the Minister had a conference of local authorities in relation to green belts, and he has now invited the great local authorities to submit proposals for new green belts wherever appropriate. Those two speeches almost give me an assurance that this Motion is one which the Government will be able to accept. Therefore, it was all the more astonishing to read an article in the Manchester Guardian of June 23 which indicated categorically that, in the opinion of the writer, what he called the "dispersal policy" had, been abandoned. I like the Manchester Guardian and I think it is a very good paper. I have been turning over in my mind why on earth that excellent paper should include that statement, which I believe is quite wrong. The only conclusion I can come to is that it was a deliberate little bit of wickedness on the part of the editor, designed to provoke the sort of answer which I hope my noble friend will give me to-day.

In this matter we have two acute problems. One is the controversy about the best use of land, and the other is the difficulty surrounding the control of industrial development; and both these difficulties are surrounded and bedevilled by bogy of finance. Last week several speakers were mildly controversial in a Party political way about housing. This time I do not anticipate any controversy of that sort, but we shall have controversy of a quite different kind, arising from the fears for the nation's food supply of those noble Lords who are particularly interested in agriculture. I want to say a word or two about that aspect. Last week the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, referred to a waste of 50,000 acres a year of good agricultural land.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Noble Lords say, "Hear, hear!", but that is a gross exaggeration, as I hope to be able to prove. I hope the noble Lords who think it is not will give figures to support their view. Let me give my side. In the first place, there is a little mystery here, because the Minister of Agriculture has issued two sets of figures covering almost the same period but showing a totally different result. There is a return for 1938–53, and on April 6 the noble Earl who speaks for the Ministry of Agriculture in this House gave another set of figures which are entirely different, do not think we need worry about the agricultural land lost during the war; most of it was then taken for proper objects and has since been restored. But the figure I would ask your Lordships to look at is that given by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, on April 6, which shows an average annual loss of agricultural land since the war of 16,000 acres. I understand that the agricultural returns give a figure for England and Wales for the years 1943–53 of 7,500 acres a year, compared to the 16,000 acres mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn. That is rather a big difference.

Whatever the loss may be, I should like to offer two answers to my agricultural friends. One was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wise. At this stage, with your Lordships' permission, I will refer to an article which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned, called "How Subsidies Distort Housing Development." It was in Lloyds Bank Review, and I have taken the liberty of putting a few copies of the article in the Prince's Chamber for any noble Lords who would care to have them. I am going to read one short paragraph: The figures recently released by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government show that in 1952 the annual value of food from gardens, good and bad together at twelve houses an acre averaged £67 12s. 0d. an acre, whereas that from medium-quality farm land was about £44 an acre. (The garden produce is at retail prices and the farm produce at farm-gate prices; but this is a fair comparison, since on the former distribution costs are saved.) It goes on to say that on a housing estate of fewer than twelve houses an acre, the production of food will, of course, be greater. Those are authoritative figures. If they are challenged, I should like to have yet another inquiry, because we really want to get the facts. I should like to ask your Lordships to remember that even if the total produce from these little gardens is not greater than that from farm land—it may be more or it may be less—at any rate, it is in itself a big addition to the nation's food supply, and it is not fair to disregard it entirely as people do when they say that farm land is being used for housing and is going out of production.

I have another argument I wish to put to my agricultural friends. It is a financial one, but it has great bearing, I think, on this food argument, because—and this is going to be one of my main pleas to your Lordships—there are immense sums to be saved by building houses rather than flats. Later, I am going to ask the Minister to have another look at the housing subsidy scale with a view to revising it, because I think we can save millions of money. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made the same point. I suggest that the money we save could be put to excellent use by helping agriculture by way of farm improvement or land reclamation. I agree that 1,000 houses at 15 to the acre uses 50 acres more than 1,000 flats at 60 to the acre, but the additional subsidy, taking the flat site at £11,000 an acre, would be £1¼ million, capitalised. That works out at £.25,000 to save each acre of land. I think that is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made a week ago when talking about spending £25,000 on an agricultural acre, when some of us on this side did not quite understand him.

The attitude of my agricultural friends reminds me sometimes of that of an old Scot of my acquaintance. Two old Scots were having an argument—probably a theological argument—and one said to the other, "Man, it's no use talking to you; you're a bigot." "No," replied the other," I'm no' a bigot, but I'm a dour de'il to convince." And my agricultural friends are "dour de'ils" to convince. But let me say at once how right they are. I do not want them to be convinced except by facts, but I do want them to accept the facts, because I know they have the cause of good housing at heart just as much as I have. I believe they are doing harm by this exaggeration of the threatened loss of the food supply by housing. I think it all helps to stimulate the campaign for flat building. If the facts are not established, I wish the Minister of Agriculture would do something to establish them and then make them known among farmers. I suppose it would be rather too much to suggest to that lion of agriculture, the President of the National Farmers' Union, that he should send a circular out to his members on the subject; but that would do more than anything else to enlighten the farmers.

What I want to put before your Lordships is how much land we shall really need, because I think we must face it. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 193, col. 260]: We cannot go on from year to year, or look at this problem, as I am afraid we have done in the past, as a short-term one. The problem has to be regarded as one which will he with us for the whole of the next generation and longer, and we ought to deal with it on that basis. I could not agree more. Consequently, I want to suggest to your Lordships that of this programme of 6 million houses in twenty years, we should try and get 3 million dwellings in the big towns and, say, 50 per cent. outside. If we do that, it would provide for 150,000 houses a year for twenty years. If we take houses at ten to the acre—I have in mind a combination of local authority and private enterprise—we shall want for proper housing development, outside the big towns, 300,000 acres in twenty years. To that we must add land for factory development, open spaces, schools and so on—another 200,000 acres. Consequently, we need over twenty years 500,000 acres of open land. It need not be good farm land, but it has to be building land. I believe we can get it, and get it with this result. We have to face an immense financial burden in any case, but I believe that under that plan the financial burden will be lower and money can be saved which can be devoted to land reclamation and improvement. I believe millions of people can he happily rehoused and that, at the end of it, the home-grown food supply will be greater.

There is one danger to the green belt to which I want to make specific reference. There is no doubt at all that ribbon development is the greatest danger threatening our green belts now. There is undoubtedly a temptation to farmers and to landowners to sell frontage land which is easily developed. I am a landlord myself. I own agricultural land, and I am aware of the temptation. That is a thing which I think must be prevented by rigorous enforcement of the local authorities' planning powers. I think some local authorities are alive to that and others are not. It is very insidious. There is a little group of houses. Somebody comes along and wants to buy a piece of land for what is called "in-filling." They fill in four acres or six acres and so ribbon development goes on. So much for the green belt.

Now may I turn to industrial development? My first objective is the relief of congestion in the great urban agglomerations. I want to emphasise that congestion means congestion of people, of industry and of traffic—all three. To diminish the congestion in the great towns is just as important an objective before us now as is the building of houses. I hope the Government will accept that view. I think it is a new view but it is one which we have to face. If I may be statistical for a moment —I apologise for the figures—I know that we have to allow for the growth of population, and I am told we must expect by and large over twenty years an increase of 200,000 a year. That makes 4 million additional people. My conclusion is that out of 6 million houses some 2 million will be required for new population and 4 million for rehousing and reduction of overcrowding. How many of these 6 million are to go other than in the big towns? I hope we shall get 50 per cent. out over the long term.

Of course, I know that in the early stages of slum clearance and the clearance of congestion we shall probably want to rehouse on the site a higher proportion than 50 per cent.; but I do not think the proportion ought to be more than 50 per cent. taken over twenty years. What we have to aim at, as I have already indicated, is the provision of the ideal family home within touch of the countryside, the sort of home from which the worker can get to his or her work on a bicycle—on a "push-bike," if your Lordships will forgive be expression. The danger we have to face is that more and more people will be pushed into these flats in the congested areas.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that there is no reason why we should not double our standard of living within twenty-five years. One of the most important things in a higher standard of living is more spacious living. In twenty-five years there will be more and more demand for more spacious living. I do not believe that in fifty years enough people will be found to live in these multi-storeyed flats in the big towns. That is why we must have dispersal of industry: we shall not get the people out of the towns unless we take the work out too. Fewer and fewer will tolerate crowded living. I venture to prophesy that there is a real danger of these multi-storeyed flats becoming derelict areas in fifty years, and then these millions and millions of subsidies will be utterly and absolutely wasted. I am not burking the size of this problem; I am asking your Lordshps to plan to take out of the existing towns 10 million people. We have twelve new Owns under construction, and the Minister has said that when they are completed they will house 500,000 people. Putting that into relationship with my 10 million, your Lordships will see that the problem is one of colossal magnitude.

Here I should like to state a principle, the choice which I think is before us. We have to choose between two things. We have to go in either for dormitory development, cutting into our green belts, or for country town development well outside the large towns. London is a special case. For London we have to go forty miles out, but in the case of the other large towns one need not go so far. All one has to do is to establish a green belt and then go outside it. There will be a wide choice available for people who want to live in the country, but the green belts, once established, must be sacrosanct. That applies to the local authorities and to private enterprise as well. I should like to emphasise what a large part private enterprise has to play in this matter, if it will "play the game." But the proper location of industry is vital. That is what I meant when I said that I would say what "elsewhere" meant. "Elsewhere" with houses means where we can put industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Wise, made a very good speech last week. He made two points with which I am happy to find I entirely agree. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 193, col. 279]: The only satisfaction that we can obtain is that, as a nation, by our efforts, we shall fully cater for the needs of the people; and we must build according to those needs. That is what I am saying. I am also happy to read his further remark (col. 280): …there are many thousands of acres of land in this country which could be brought back into cultivation in order to counteract the loss of agricultural land which it may be necessary to acquire for housing purposes. That will be some consolation to my agricultural friends whom I alarm by my demand for 500,000 acres. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, went on however, to say something about which I am not quite so sure. He said (col. 281): We should strive not to bring to these small country places industrialisation, or matters of that sort, however attractive it may be from the point of view of reduction of rates … I am far from saying that rural areas have not to be preserved and protected —they have. It is not everywhere that we should want industry, but we must be prepared to get the smaller places to take industry. That will be an urgent job for all the local authorities. Many small towns will benefit by having industry.

There is one small point that the Minister could answer. Is there perhaps not some duplication of the direction of the location of industry? The Ministry of Housing and Local Government look after housing and town planning. The Board of Trade are specifically concerned with the prevention of unemployment. The Ministry of Supply are specifically concerned with certain aspects of defence. It may well be that the Ministry of Labour also come into the matter. I do not suggest that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should take over the whole of the direction of the location of industry—clearly, they do not know enough about industry. The Board of Trade know about industry, and what I am asking is: what is there in the way of co-ordination? Is there proper, close inter-departmental co-ordination in this matter of the location of industry? Moreover, I am rather afraid that there will be a necessity for some greater restrictive powers. Factories can still expand by 5,000 square feet without board of Trade consent. Another thing which is very dangerous is that there is no Board of Trade control over the location of new premises for office and commercial buildings. I think there ought to be. It may well be that there should be greater power. I am sure that in many cases where factories move out of the towns it would be possible, if the proper steps were taken, to prevent industry from returning to the old site. That might mean the payment of some compensation, but I am sure that could be found by building fewer of these ridiculously high-subsidy flats. We want a real, concentrated effort to get industry out. I hope the Minister will say that he regards that as a national objective, as important as building houses. We have to get all the local authorities in on that, and we have to educate public opinion.

Now a few more words about finance. As regards these flats on expensive sites, most people think that a higher subsidy is paid on an expensive site to meet the land cost. That is an utter and entire fallacy and delusion. Let me give your Lordships an example. On an acre that costs £10,000, the land cost of fifty flats is £200. On an acre that costs £3,000, the land cost of fifteen houses, with gardens, is exactly the same—£200. The real reason for these colossal subsidies is higher building costs. They have risen greatly since the war, and the building costs now run to three and four times the site cost. That is why the local authorities need to have these tremendously high subsidies. It has the economic result of keeping these people in the congested areas because they have to be kept near their work. That distorts the ordinary economic development of cities. The economic development is that if art industry finds it uneconomic, it moves out. It may move to the periphery or it may move right out. These subsidies are keeping people there and are preventing that normal exodus of industry.

What is the result in relation to what the nation should get and what it pays for its housing bill? A flat of 750 square feet often costs over £3,000—seldom less than £2,500. The normal three-bedroomed 850 square feet house costs £1,500. There is actually an extra cost in subsidy of over £1,300. That is the capitalised value; that is not money that is actually paid out. I am being very moderate. I am taking the capitalised present value of the subsidies spread over sixty years. If I gave your Lordships the actual money, paid out over sixty years, the figure in respect of the flat would be £5,205 and in respect of the house would be £1,764, and the difference would be not £1,300 but £3,441 more for every one of the flats compared to the house, which is what the people really want. Will the Minister have a look at that subsidy scale?

I should like to suggest two principles by which the subsidy should be guided. First of all, the subsidy should be related to the size of the dwelling; secondly, there should be a limit of the expensive site subsidy to the cost of the land and not to the cost of the building. In passing, I may say that both in Northern Ireland and in Scotland the subsidy varies with the number of rooms. The savings to be made are colossal. I apologise for inflicting statistics on your Lordships, but your Lordships may like to see them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I think this one is right: 50,000 people housed in 16,000 lilt flats, with land at £10,000 to £12,000 an acre, at 40 to the acre, cost £31 million in subsidies. Under a mixed development, with 25,000 people in new towns, there is a £5 million subsidy; and with 25,000 people on the same expensive sites but at 20 to the acre the subsidy is £9 million. That makes £14 million as against £31 million, a saving of £17 million.

My Lords, I must make one brief reference to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, who talked of the burden of interest, a matter in regard to which I sympathise with him. How nice it would be if the local authorities could get, I am not sure if he said "money for nothing," but money for half-rate interest or something of that sort. At any rate, it sounded to me very much like what I believe is called "social credit." He did not mention social credit, but the long and short of it is that Lord Greenhill definitely wanted something out of nothing. There is no historical record of that being successfully clone since the portentous event which is recorded in the first two verses of the first chapter of Genesis.

May I make one other comment on the speech of my noble friend, Lord Munster? I thought he was unduly pessimistic about the finance of the new towns. He summed it up by saying that there are two views. I agree that there are two views, but I believe one is right and the other is wrong. I should like my noble friend to have another look at that matter. The published figures show that for 1954–55 at least three of the new towns will show a surplus; the aggregate accounts of the whole of the twelve to March, 1954, show a deficiency of only £234,000 for the year. Moreover, six of the towns would have had a revenue surplus if interest during construction had been charged to capital. And those calculations take no account of the economic disadvantages of central congestion. We know that central congestion means the building of uneconomic tubes and all the other uneconomic features with which we are now familiar.

I know I am speaking for too long a time but I must say a word about the importance of local authorities. All the local authorities, big and small, have a great part to play in this matter; and so, too, have the county councils, who have to supply money. I would stress that here there is an opportunity for urban district councils to make a profitable investment in overspill. I was delighted to read a speech by Mr. Deedes, who is the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Only a day o two ago he stressed that point in a most helpful speech. The machinery is the New Towns Act, 1946, and the Town Development Act, 1952. I hope the Minister will tell us something about the respective working of each of those Acts. I pay my tribute to the changed attitude of the great local authorities. There really has been a change of heart. In the old days there was an idea that population, prestige and rateable value all went together; that it was a good thing to retain your population and have a high rateable value. Nowadays, we realise the disadvantages of the congestion which that causes.

I believe that the great local authorities—I speak with certainty of the L.C.C., of Birmingham and of Glasgow—realise that now and are making progress in this great effort to get industry and population out. I have no doubt that thoughts of rateable value still lurk in the minds of some municipal treasurers and rating authorities; but they are a diminishing band, and I hope that the Minister will do all he can to encourage the idea that sound finance is associated with dispersal. Manchester, too, has as fine a record in housing as any of our great cities, but I believe that in this matter of overspill they are finding it difficult to get a move on. I think they have particular difficulty and that they are worried about the machinery. I am sure that my friends in Manchester will make a tremendous effort to be worthy, in these new developments, of their very great past.

I want your Lordships to believe that this present moment is a turning point. My recollection of this matter goes back thirty-five years, when Lloyd George spoke of "a land fit for heroes to live in." When we came home from the war in 1919, many of us for the first time made the discovery that housing conditions in this country were very bad. It was a great discovery; it was a great shock. Now we have to make a new discovery. It is this: in England and Wales 1¾million dwellings have been built since the war, and of that number 65,000 are drawing a high flat subsidy—that is, 3¾ per cent. The Ministry of Housing have told me that last year 308,000 dwellings were built in England and Wales, and of these 45,000 were flats—that is 15 per cent. The discovery and the danger with which we are faced is that the great mass of new housing that we know we are going to create will add to the congestion instead of diminishing it.

We have to admit that ever since 1919 many houses have been built in what ought to have been green belts. I freely confess that thirty years ago, when I was "mad keen" to get houses built anywhere and anyhow, I thought the town and country planners were a "something" nuisance—they interfered with my wanting to put my houses where it was easy to put them. I now realise that they were wise and that in the last thirty years we have, from the point of view I am expressing to-day, lost a great opportunity. In fact, instead of "a turning point" I feel I am entitled to use a more vivid word which means the same thing—that is, "crisis." It is a crisis, and—my Lords—it is later than we think. That is the new discovery of which I believe most people are quite unaware. Compared with thirty years ago, the stakes we are now playing for are much higher. We have the certainty that the houses will be built, and the gulf between the worst and the best is terrific. We have a wonderful opportunity. But I think that to-day we stand in imminent peril. I suppose that the two domestic issues which are most in the public mind to-day are industrial relations and how to maintain the purchasing power of the £. I believe that the quality of the homes of future generations transcends both those questions in importance. I hope that the Minister and the House will accept the Motion. I should like it to be regarded as a vote of confidence in the Minister and a message of encouragement to all the local authorities, great and small.

Moved to resolve, That full use should be made of the powers provided by the Town Development Act. 1952, in order to relieve congestion in overcrowded urban areas, and that at the same time green belts should be established to prevent the further sprawl of large cities into the countryside.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

3.21 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, does not wish to speak at this juncture, though I hope he may be persuaded to do so later. Therefore it falls to me to continue the debate. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh has given us one of his customary forthright and lucid speeches, with a great deal of which I find myself in agreement and—what is much more important—with a great deal of which the County Councils Association would agree. Nevertheless, when appeals for economy are made, whilst I am all for the principle, I sometimes hope that the economy will not be applied too much to my own circumstances. I hope that this tremendous expansion of country towns and so on will not take place at a greatly accelerated rate in the particular area in which I live, and I believe that I have some good reasons, for taking that apparently rather selfish attitude.

In the first place, many of our towns in the South-East are themselves expanding. The population of one quite small town grew by 1,000 last year, and growth seems to be continuing at an average rate of something like 4½ per cent. per annum. I know land on the outskirts of Brighton which in 1947 was valued as open downland at £50 an acre. Today that same land is changing hands at about £1,000 an acre. There is plenty of other evidence that the drift into the South-East of England, which was in progress before the war, is now continuing as fast as ever it was. That process seems to be eating up our amenities and agricultural land quite fast enough. I do not intend to challenge my noble friend's statistics on agricultural land. If the Ministry of Agriculture produce two conflicting sets of statistics on this matter, who am I to put in a third? But it seems to me that there must be some qualification to this argument that house-building in fact expands agricultural production. I thought that in this country we needed more meat and more cereals, neither of which seems to be particularly adaptable to production in somebody's back garden.

Reverting to this question of immigration outside the Town Development Act, I would say that immigrants to my own county of Sussex seem to be of two types: there are those who come to live in Sussex on retirement, and there are the office workers who like to live in the country and who go to London every day for their work. But there is a certain element of industrial immigration, some of it officially sponsored by Crawley New Town Corporation, and some of it by others acting on their own initiative. I would say, in passing, that the railways-are already becoming extremely congested at peak hours. Most of the immigrants live in quite small houses, probably of between £20 and £30 annual value, and, according to our calculations, probably taking out of our rate fund more than they put in.

We live in a world of format, and under the formula of the equalisation grant we get nothing; and we shall not get anything unless our population expands very greatly. But the consequence of the general tendency of this immigration is to put up our rates, and I believe I am right in saying that Crawley New Town, with all the science and skill put into it, has already put up the rates of the West Sussex County Council by about 1s. I do not see, therefore, how we can be expected to welcome any approach to greatly increasing the rate of immigration under the Town Development Act, particularly as we should not be likely to receive much financial assistance. The County Councils Association are at present examining the question of why the Town. Development Act is not working better and are having various conversations with the Ministry. They have not yet reached any very definite conclusions but your Lordships will remember the lines: In matters of commerce the fault of the Dutch Is offering too little and asking too much. I think that the receiving authorities will be found to be taking that attitude to the exporting authorities and to the Ministry.

My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh referred to the great cost of flat building. I ant not qualified to comment upon that. He did not, I think, touch on the ancillary expenses that go with housing in new areas—roads, sewers and, above all, schools. I hope that somehow it may be possible to get these various statistics compared, but I do not know whether the costs are quite so disparate as they are made out to be on Mr. Osborn's article. Nor are we entirely convinced that if we accommodate greatly increased population from London that will do a great deal of good. It sometimes seems to me that we are engaged in a gigantic game of merry-go-round.: that as fast as population comes out of London, new population arrives there; and that we, in these neighbouring counties, could go on building almost indefinitely without ever satisfying the demand. There does not seem to be any document which sheds light on what is happening.

I was reading the somewhat large document, Report of the Development Corporations of the New Towns. I am a great believer in the new towns, and I believe that it was a great act of statesmanship to start them. They were originally conceived, however, as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh has emphasised, as a measure to decongest the great cities, and in this document which describes the growth of all these different new towns I can find very little about the real effect that the building of the new towns is actually having on the decongestion of London and the other great towns. Is there any diminution in the numbers of industries in London? I have heard it said that as fast as industries leave London for the new towns and elsewhere, other industries come in and take their place. Is there any diminution in the numbers of offices in the Metropolitan area? Certainly it does not appear to be so, if one can judge by the evidence of one's eyes; and I now see that the erection of skyscrapers is contemplated for the accommodation of office workers in the City of London. Certainly there does not seem to be very much diminution in the traffic of London.

I am sure that something has been done to reduce the residential population in certain central areas in London—one can tell that from the census figures and from the fact that certain Parliamentary constituencies in the centre of London have been abolished. But is there any evidence at all that the population—at any rate during the day—of the Greater London area is any less now than it was, say, in 1947? People surely follow the movements of sources of employment, and unless new sources are prevented from arising within the central area, though we may increase the traffic, we shall have done very little to tackle the real problem.

I think that bears out what my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said in regard to this matter. There does not seem to be any element of national planning, or, at least, an element that is intelligible to the world at large, though I have no doubt that certain proposals made by particular local authorities are encouraged or discouraged, as the case may be, according to whether they fit in with the Ministry's views or not. I do not think there is any published document showing the overall picture of what the Ministry of Housing and Local Government would like to see. We in Sussex are fortunate in having living among us some very eminent citizens, members of the Government. We have the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, I think, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If we are told by a Government containing all these eminent people that we ought to take much larger numbers of the population from London, of course we shall pay great heed: but at the present moment we are far from being convinced that we should be helping to solve the problem which has been so eloquently described by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh.

There is, however, one other side of the picture. There are a few places which we should like to see further developed in our own interests, and such development might well fit in, though to a limited extent, with the objects which my noble friend who moved the Motion has in view. But we find great difficulty in doing this, chiefly, I think, because of the limitations hitherto placed on capital investment. At the risk of appearing a little parochial, I should like to give your Lordships a particular instance from my own knowledge. The House may know of a small port in Sussex called Newhaven. There, for a variety of local reasons, we should like to see more building, more industry and a busier port. Our ideas on these matters are quite modest, but we should like to have a few more industries, either from London or, possibly, from one of the overcrowded county boroughs nearby. Possibly there are many other places in the country at which similar proposals might be put in force which would help in the decongestion. For the purpose of getting any constructive planning going, we have to deal first (the noble Lord mentioned this) with the Board of Trade to get permission for the industries to establish themselves. Secondly, we have to deal with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, for housing locations and for loan sanctions for schemes of water and sewerage. Thirdly, we have to deal with the Ministry of Transport for road improvements; and, fourthly, we have to consult the Transport Commission in regard to port facilities.

It is to-clay, I believe, fairly easy to get a decision from the Board of Trade. Though at one time they wished to judge every case on its merits, I think they are now ready to take a long-term point of view. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government are always extremely sympathetic, but, no doubt because of the financial limitation on capital schemes, their sanctions for loans seem to take an extraordinarily long time. On any matter of road improvement we have to deal with the Ministry of Transport, and I think, frankly, they are the most difficult Ministry of all. I have no doubt that that again it is largely due to finance—roads demand the expenditure of a great deal of money. But I think it is also, in part, due to the organisation of the Ministry, and to the fact that expenditure on road maintenance comes under quite a different heading from expenditure on road improvements. In these days the word "maintenance" covers quite a lot: apparently you can double the size of your roads, have dual-carriageways, round abouts and so forth. You can construct something like a race track leading up to your towns, but when it comes to matters like the enlargement of a bridge or a small diversion of a new road—something which may be quite vital to your plan — that comes under an entirely different heading, with an entirely different series of priorities and no information whatever is available as to when work of that kind could be contemplated. This attitude may be intelligible but, equally, it renders constructive planning extraordinarily difficult. The British Transport Commission were for a long time unable to answer any question about port facilities, though since the major programme of works was authorised by the Government some months ago they have made some specific plans for Newhaven which have been very much welcomed by the inhabitants. But again I think their implementation may depend to some extent on the road programme.

I agree with Lord Balfour of Burleigh that there seems to be no method of co-ordinating the work of different Ministries. On top of this, there is always the possibility of some body like the Electricity Commissioners, or one of the Services, coming in with a new proposal, often made at very short notice, which may have a revolutionary effect on plans. The County Councils Association, in their conversations with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, will no doubt deal with a number of these problems, in addition to the problem of finance but at present, the impression one gets is that long-term planning is all right for local authorities but quite impossible for Government Departments.

To summarise, I would say that, though the idea of a body of planners sitting in. Whitehall and distributing the population, on a national basis may appear superficially attractive—and I agree that it has many points to commend it—it is unlikely to prevail against the wishes of the receiving authorities. The potential receiving authorities are capable of being persuaded, particularly if the persuasion is accompanied by an adequate financial offer. But money is not the only thing. We are seriously bothered by the idea of the continuing drift to the South-East we do not want to become a constantly expanding dormitory suburb for London, and we have to be convinced that an accelerated rate of immigration really is in the national interest. But where we do, in our own interests, want to expand, we could wish that it were a little easier for us to do so.

3.40 p.m.

LORD SALTER

My Lords, I shall be very grateful if you will allow me a few minutes of your time, not to make a speech (I had not intended to speak at all to-day) but to make a few comments upon the two speeches which we have heard. All of us, I am sure, have listened to the opening speeches with great interest, and so far as I am concerned it has been with a large measure of agreement. I suppose that everyone in your Lordships' House desires to relieve urban congestion and that the Government should take positive action to help this relief. But upon what principle? Probably most of us would agree that we certainly do not want to encourage more and more distant dormitory towns. There are, of course, dormitory towns; and there must he daily commuting: we cannot stop it. But surely we want to aim our policy at restricting and reducing, rather than at extending, this. More and more distant dormitories are time-consuming, life-consuming, soul-destroying factors in our economy. In addition to the disadvantages to the individual they will also, probably, if allowed to continue and expand, destroy any hope of anything like a green belt policy. In the second place, while relieving some housing congestion in the centre, they add immensely to the general traffic congestion problem, which is also a very serious problem before the country.

What we really desire to do is not to increase by Government policy the tendency to sleep out of town and conic in to the places where we earn our living at congested centres, but, so far as possible, to disperse the earning centres themselves. That means the encouraging of the settlement of industries outside the great urban areas. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said as against another noble Lord whom he quoted as expressing a contrary opinion. It is no use thinking that we can relieve the congestion in urban centres by encouraging towns outside, to be inhabited by pensioners and rentiers. They must be towns that are self-supporting economic units. Except where a locality has a special advantage, such as an attractive holiday resort or something of that kind, new development really means attracting industries as the basic magnet and compelling force. They may be light industries, but, by and large, they must be industries. Once we have them, they attract population, and will support a population immensely greater than the number of workers in the industries themselves, because there will be all the subsidiary forms of earning, in shops and the rest, which are based on that foundation. But we must have that foundation. If we are to be successful in this policy of dispersal, we must definitely contemplate attracting industries, in some way or another, to the new towns, or to the older towns under the 1952 Act designed to expand them.

In this connection, I would venture to ask your Lordships to turn your attention to one point that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh—that is, the relation between subsidy policy and the policy of trying to secure relief of urban congestion. I am certainly not going to make any adverse criticism of the subsidisation of housing in itself, but I think that differentially greater subsidies applied to building upon especially expensive sites need reconsideration. There perhaps I do not agree entirely with the noble Lord. He said, and so far I would agree with him, that it is uneconomic to give much greater subsidies to flats in high buildings than to houses. Perhaps, But he went on, if I understood him aright, to say that he would like a differential subsidy to be related to the expensiveness of the site. But what does that mean? If the Government took no hand in this at all and left everything to the play of economic forces, what would happen would be that a congested area of land would become expensive for housing and the wages in one form or another of the people engaged in those industries in the congested area would have to be increased. Then there would be a perfectly natural inducement to prospective industrialists to plant their industries in the country, rather than near the centre of great and expensive towns like London. But what happens in fact is that not only do the Government, rightly, give subsidies for housing, but they give a differentially high subsidy to those built upon expensive land. That is to say, by their own deliberate action, though it is not intended for this purpose, the Government cancel what would otherwise be a perfectly normal economic force tending to take industry away from urban centres.

I suggest that that policy ought to be reconsidered. One of the principal criticisms I have of planning and of planning control, as it has in fact been practised, is that too often planning is not really planning in the true sense at all —that is to say, a general plan based upon a balanced policy; it is too often the pursuit of a particular economic purpose without regard to its secondary consequences. It has been for many years the policy of successive Governments, of whatever political complexion, to pursue two purposes: one, to assist in the decentralisation, the dispersal of the industrial life of the country to relieve urban congestion, and the other, to assist the provision of houses by means of subsidies. But these two policies have been pursued separately and without regard to the one point at which they seem to me to conflict—namely, in giving differentially high subsidies for houses that are built on expensive sites. This means the cancellation of the normal and natural economic force that would otherwise tend to help the other policy of the Government of dispersal and decentralisation. I venture to put these two or three considerations before your Lordships at this stage in the debate.

3.48 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I think we are all delighted to find that the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, for better housing, and his great knowledge of the housing problem, are unabated after thirty years. Although I do not regret for a moment that he inaugurated this debate, it is a sad reflection on the past improvement in our social conditions that the noble Lord has had to address his industry and enthusiasm to the same problem after this lapse of time. Let me say at this stage that I shall be speaking from the point of view of London and not from that of the Party I represent. I do not mean that there is any difference, far less any conflict, between the views of my Party and the policy of London, but if anyone were to speak from the standpoint of the Party I represent, then clearly my noble friend Lord Silkin, who has been Minister of Town and Country Planning, is much better qualified to do so than I am.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that effective action to carry out the provisions of the Town Development Act is most urgently required. The noble Lord said, rightly, that nowadays there is no alternative method of relieving overcrowding in our great conurbations and finding new homes and work for their surplus population. He has stressed the advantages to all local authorities concerned: to the small authorities in the countryside, for whom the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, was speaking—although I do not think he shared Lord Balfour's point of view—and also to the large exporting authorities in the urban areas. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, might have said—although he did not—that small town expansion is like the quality of mercy as described by learned counsel in The Merchant of Venice: …it is twice blest; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. I should like to deal with the position of London, because I believe I can do it without being parochial. It illustrates feel, the need for speedy action. Nowhere else in the country is the problem of congestion so acute. London has a larger overspill in numbers than any of our other great cities., larger even than that of Birmingham or Glasgow, and the hardship of unsatisfactory housing conditions is therefore even more widespread. At the same time, the dispersal of London's population and its settlement in less crowded areas outside London is typical of the difficulties and problems confronting all our large conurbations. The Minister of Housing and Local Government takes the view that the surplus population of the London County Council area —that is to say, those who cannot be rehoused inside the county—is about 280,000 persons. Before I go further, I should like to say that this is certainly a minimum figure, and it is not a figure with which the London County Council have been in agreement. I hope that the Government are right and that the Council are wrong. I say that now, because it may well be that even when these people have been settled elsewhere there will still be an acute problem in London. These are the people for whom homes and work have to be found outside London. They include virtually the whole of the London County Council waiting list of 160,000 applicants for better accommodation; and I would remind your Lordships (I mentioned this last week, and I hesitate to repeat myself, but I think it is of some importance) that atleast 50,000 of the, applicants on this waiting list are people who are in urgent need of rehousing. Most of whom have been waiting for a long period of time.

I do not think it is generally realised outside London that, owing to the growing shortage of central sites, and the difficulties, to which several noble Lords have alluded, of using these central sites for housing development, we can rehouse in London only families dispersed by slum clearance and other essential redevelopment. What, then, is the prospect of relief for the vast majority of Londoners in the near future? Clearly they would have to pull up their roots in London and learn a new loyalty and different way of life elsewhere, and that in itself is a difficult psychological problem. But that clearly can be overcome. It has been calculated that the existing council estates in the suburbs will take about 70,000 persons. Going a little further outside, the new towns are expected to take another 75,000 persons. This leaves a balance of at least 135,000 persons who must go beyond the suburbs and beyond the new towns into an area between fifty and one hundred miles from London. These are the people for whom accommodation is being sought and work is being looked for in these small country towns. I think these figures show the enormous size of the contributions which these small towns must be willing to make if London is not always to be as overcrowded and underhoused as it is at the present time.

VISCOUNT GAGE

Would the noble Earl tell me whether the housing list to which he has referred shows any signs of getting smaller, even when steps have been taken to reduce it?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am glad the noble Viscount has asked me that question. I can tell him—because I saw the figures this morning, as a matter of fact—that the housing list has decreased by 5.000 in the last six months. It is growing smaller, but at a very slow rate, as the noble Viscount can judge.

Therefore, what we are most anxious to know from the Government is whether the Minister is going to work the 1952 Act in a wholehearted way. This Act will only work, and can only work, if the Government are determined to put their authority behind it. There has been a considerable period of delay and inaction since the Act was passed, but the Minister's statement on April 25, which was a most encouraging and helpful statement, may indicate a change of attitude. If that is the case and the Minister now means to press forward with the Act, then clearly no one will wish to recriminate about the past. I suggest to the Government that the best way of proving their good intentions will be to take other measures of prompt, further action, which are required if this development is to be carried out. The financial encouragement which has been given to the receiving authorities as a result of the Ministerial statement of April is indeed a useful step forward, but it will not take us the whole way by any means: other changes of policy and administration are no less essential if this work is to proceed.

What I should like to ask the Government (and I have given notice of these questions) is what their intentions are, and whether they will make certain changes in policy and administration which in London we regard as being vital, and certainly vital to any quick or really satisfactory progress in the dispersal of our population and the growth of these small towns in the neighbourhood. In the first place, I should like to ask the Government whether they will give a lead to the authorities in the countryside. Are they willing to give up their attitude of Olympian detachment and exercise the leadership which I believe public opinion expects at the present moment? This, I believe, is particularly important for the breaking down of what I might call political prejudice. This whole matter of town expansion is clearly not a Party problem in any sense of the word, and I hope it never will be. At the same time, we must recognise that it cannot take place without the agreement of a number of authorities that often differ in their political outlook. The influence of the Government clearly would be most valuable in preventing these differences from becoming any sort of obstacle to agreement. If the Minister is prepared to accept, in principle, the need for leadership, then would he, in consultation with the exporting authorities, with the urban authorities, encourage towns which are considering expansion to take a favourable decision, and planning authorities in their areas to give their blessing to schemes of town expansion? For example, could not the Minister write a personal letter—because a personal letter always carries a great deal of weight—to all the authorities concerned?

My second point is this. One of the big difficulties about increasing the populations of these small towns has already been alluded to by several noble Lords, and it is the difficulty of inducing new industry to go in and provide work for the incoming inhabitants. I thought the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Salter, was well justified, if only because he laid particular emphasis on the absolute need for getting new industry and new firms to go into these places. This difficulty has been aggravated by a conflict of policy between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I believe both the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said that there had been a lack of co-ordination between Government Departments. I wish I could feel that that was all. In my view, it is far worse than that, and there has been not only lack of co-ordination but the pursuit of conflicting policies. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government have obviously wanted firms to go into the expanded towns, because that is an essential condition of expansion; but the Board of Trade have tended to turn down applications from the industrial firms because of the prior claim of the development areas.

Now we have all had experience of such conflicts of policy between Government Departments, and there is machinery in every Government to resolve them. In the last resort, of course, the matter has to come before the Cabinet. In this case, as the prior claim upon industry to go into the development areas, which., as your Lordships remember, were originally called the depressed areas, and go back to the days of mass unemployment, is really a relic of the conditions of those days, I hope the Government will decide that expanding towns are at least equally important—that is to say, they should be given the same priority; I am not asking for a higher priority—as development areas. If the Government will agree to this, then I should think it would be possible to say that, as a general rule, when a firm applied to go to an expanded town the Board of Trade would give an industrial development certificate. I do not say it would be given every time firms wanted to go anywhere else, but I should have thought that it might be adopted as a general rule for the guidance of the Board of Trade. If this were done, it would make an immense difference to the possibility of proceeding with the building and development of these small towns quickly, without further delay. These are the two most important changes which we should like to see. We should like to see vigorous support of town expansion by the Government, and a higher priority for new industry in the expanded towns. There are other things of rather lesser importance which the Government could and should do to help this policy forward.

Another difficulty experienced by local authorities is that sites for building a town expansion in a small town sometimes vanish while the negotiations are going on. This clearly cuts the ground from under the feet of the negotiating authorities. Therefore, what I should like to ask the Government is whether they would instruct the planning authori- ties to refuse permission for the sale of land on the grounds that negotiations are proceeding—that is to say, would temporarily refuse permission for dealings in land in a specific area while the negotiations between the authorities are going on. Another difficulty about effecting this dispersal from the urban areas and getting the people right outside is, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, pointed out, that industry is apt to come back into the vacated premises of firms who have moved out. Of course, in theory this can be stopped by a local authority if it can afford to buy the empty premises. But the cost is usually high, and often too high for the local rates to bear. What. I should like to ask the Government is whether they will consider increasing the grant to local authorities for this purpose. I think there is a strong case for it, because, after all, the policy of dispersal is a national policy:, it is primarily a national responsibility; therefore there is a special case for a grant of the same order as that paid to local authorities for other duties of national importance, such as education.

My last two questions are limited entirely to London, which in this respect is different from the other great towns which are trying to get rid of their surplus population. May I just put the London position quite briefly? If London fails to secure the consent of a sufficient number of receiving authorities to take an overspill of 150,000 persons or slightly less, what other alternative will the Government suggest that London should try? If there is no other alternative, then will the Government approve, in principle at any rate, that another new town should be started in the vicinity of London, catering mainly for the county of London area; and, in that event, will the Ministry be willing to discuss this possibility? As your Lordships are aware, the existing new towns provide for the whole area of Greater London and cannot, therefore, absorb more than a certain proportion of the surplus from the central area. It would be essential to find another site for a new town, and I hasten to point out here, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, will be "weighing in" for agriculture in a moment, that such a site need not interfere with the schemes of agriculture. The noble Viscount will know that there are considerable areas in East Anglia—especially, for instance, in Suffolk—which are quite unsuitable for agriculture, even for rough grazing. It would appear possible, at any rate on the face of it, for building development to take place in such areas without taking away land from agricultural use.

The other question I should like to ask is this. The London County Council have been negotiating, or are negotiating at the present time, with sixteen of these small towns within a radius of about a hundred miles from London. Ten of these towns have already come in, or are likely to come in, whilst six are much less likely to do so. Of the remaining six, four are cases in which everything will depend upon the attitude of the Government. These six will take altogether 50,000 people—that is to say, a third of the total overspill—so they are an extremely important feature of expansion from London. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the Government would approve in advance, subject, of course, to receiving the detailed schemes, a larger number of towns for expansion from London than the ten which are already approved or likely to be approved. If the Government cannot approve of the six, or some of the six, which I have just mentioned, then can the Government suggest other towns with which the London County Council should negotiate? I hope I have not been parochial. I have tried not to be, but I feel this is a splendid opportunity to get a statement from the Government which will be reassuring and encouraging, not only for London and for the rural authorities with which London has to deal but for the country as a whole. I look forward, with hope, to the statement which we are to receive at the end of this debate.

4.9 p.m.

VISCOUNT HUDSON

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, started off by making a statement which may be true in actual wording, though, so far as my experience goes, it certainly is not true in intention. He said that the ordinary man who applies for accommodation wants a house and garden. And it may be true that the majority of those people do state, when they make their application, that they want a house and garden. I happen, for my sins, to be President of the Allotments and Gardening Association, and all I can say is that our experience over the last five or six years definitely shows that the man who says he wants a house and garden does not, in fact, cultivate his garden. Roughly speaking, about one in five does. We have about a million members and there are about 5 million gardens and allotments. We spend all our time, and a certain amount of Government money, in endeavouring to increase our numbers. If there was any truth in what were the intentions of the people about whom the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, spoke, we should go ahead and make great strides; but in fact there is not.

The brief answer—and this applies to the figure quoted by Mr. Osborn in his interesting article in Lloyds Bank Review—is that you cannot compare the produce from an acre devoted to gardens with the produce from an acre of agricultural land, because a very small amount of that acre which is devoted to gardens is in fact cultivated. A few people cultivate roses, chrysanthemums and so forth, but the great majority do not produce any food. Therefore, one cannot take this mythical figure of £67 12s. worth of produce from an acre of gardens and apply it to the total number of houses being built. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will forgive my saying so, but I am reasonably certain that the figure which the Government Departments have produced, on which this estimate Mr. Osborn quotes is based (I admit that he is entitled to quote it, because it is a Government figure) is far from correct. I should like to see a new and more practical estimate made. There is this further point: even if the value of all the food produced by these gardens is admitted to amount to £67 an acre, the fact remains that it is very largely food of which we have substantial surplus supplies in this country—vegetables, fruit and plants—whereas, of course, what agriculture is asked to produce in large quantities is proteins and milk, as the noble Viscount. Lord Woolton, used to impress on me in the days when we worked together. Therefore, the two are not comparable. You cannot say that whatever imaginary figure 'is produced for gardens and allotments is comparable with the figure for agricultural land.

The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, also said that local authorities had done magnificent work. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about London. London is one of the biggest "villains of the piece." From my experience, London has no regard for the potential food-producing value of the land it wants. It says: "I want that land. I am the London County Council. The Government do not stand up against me. I am going to take it." That is what the London County Council did during the war, as the noble Viscount will remember. There was an area east of London on which the Council set their eyes—some of the most highly producing horticultural land in the country. Quite close there was an area of very poor land. I did my best to persuade the London County Council to lake the inferior land on which to build their houses. I was told: "We are taking the first-class land." I said that I would take the matter to the Cabinet. The Council said, "It is no good because we shall win"—and, in fact, they did. They have made some arrangement—I do not know what it is —for Slough. As I go up from home at the week-end I see this first-class agricultural land with a large notice on it saying. "Future site for a satellite town from London." I could go on quoting many cases, but it still remains true. Having made that plea for agriculture, I would add that these figures in Mr. Osborn's article so far as the cost of subsidies is concerned, are probably correct. Frankly, they are frightening. Even if we may have a passion for preserving agricultural land, the farmers have to realise the importance of finance from a broad, national, economic view. Quite clearly the whole question ought to be looked at again.

I do not know enough about how the new towns are developing. Three or four years ago I was most impressed by Crawley. But the important thing is to remember the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Salter: that what is needed is not the building of more dormitories, which is the tendency at Slough, but the dispersal of the working area. If we re-examine the whole of the Town Development Act from that point of view we shall be getting somewhere. I am quite sure that, agriculturally speaking, we should be prepared to provide whatever number of acres are required, so long as they are in reasonably poor country and so long as reasonably poor land is concerned. I do not particularly like the growth of the small towns because, in my experience, that upsets the whole balance of agriculture. If small towns are developed it means that there are great openings in other industries for the agricultural worker—and agriculture is already suffering a heavy drift from the land. In these small towns the drift from the neighbouring farms into the towns is much greater thin we generally realise.

I should therefore like to suggest to the Government that we have another look at the problem in the light of what has been happening in development for the last five years, to see whether we cannot help London. Some of the land in Suffolk is first-class, in spite of the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Iveagh, to grow lucerne there; and there are many areas of land covered by the Forestry Commission which would make good places to live in, with gardens producing £67 worth of food an acre. We should take advantage of the turning point and make quite sure that we are not continuing to develop along wrong lines. The whole question should be looked at again to see what are the real facts about food production and whether or not better food production could be encouraged from allotments and gardens. Certainly we, the Allotments Society, would be only too glad to have a little extra money: a little extra grant would be a good thing. We could push on and develop a little more. We should like the whole question looked at again.

4.18 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I had not intended to speak, although my name was on the list. I ought to explain that my name was put sown without any authority on my part. I felt I was so much in agreement with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh—I knew what he was going to say; his speech was largely in agreement with the speech I made a week ago—that no useful purpose would be served by merely saying once more that I agreed with him. We have had a very good debate, but there are one or two points which perhaps could be amplified and discussed before the noble Earl replies. What this debate has established once more is the point upon which I tried to build my speech last week: that is, that there is a real need for clear and fresh thinking upon this subject. We have been going along very much in a rut. I was glad the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, made the same point. We have been rather assuming that this is a conflict, almost an irreconcilable conflict, between those who want to build high up and those who want to build all over the country, using up good agricultural land. That is not the case; indeed, I think the argument is becoming largely academic, because the areas in which it is possible to build in the centre of towns are rapidly becoming used up.

I feel the House ought to realise the problem with which we are faced. I hope the House will not mind my just putting it once more as I see it—it has been put before. There is, first of all, the fact that our large towns are congested. We have slums and we have houses that are built too close together, intermingling with industry and badly arranged. We are all in agreement that those areas must be redeveloped. The fact is that when we come to redevelop, if we are going to build on modern standards we can build for only a proportion of the numbers housed on the original site—possibly a half, possibly a little more; but if we say approximately a half I do not think it will be far out. The question then arises, where are we going to provide accommodation for the other half? We then have the fact that our population is increasing. Perhaps it ought not to: perhaps we ought to take steps to do something about it; but the fact is that it is increasing every year. One can make whatever calculation one likes about that. I thought that the annual increase in population creates a need for about 70,000 houses a year. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, thinks it is not quite so many. Well he can have his figure; he said 60,000. But whatever the figure is, there is a need for 60,000 or 70,000 additional houses every year, merely to meet the increase in population. Where are we going to put these people?

There is also the fact that certain people have to live near their work. You cannot have a waiter who works at the Savoy Hotel until two o'clock in the morning, going to an expanded town to live; he has to live close to his work. Nor can the docker who has to start work (when he does start) at six o'clock in the morning, be expected to go to one of these towns. These people have to be near their work. There are large numbers of other people who, by reason of their occupation, must be housed near their work. So that the truth of the matter is that there is a need for a large number of flats. How many I do not know. That is one of the questions we might look into. A certain number are required. But there are other persons who are not obliged to be on top of their work. Then the problem of transport arises. We cannot go on putting more and more transport on our restricted roads without doing something about that problem.

There is the further fact of the enormous cost of building flats. Lord Balfour of Burleigh is perfectly right in saying that, on a site in a congested area, or anywhere else for that matter, it costs two or three times as much to build a flat, with a lift, as it does to build a house. I should have thought it is a matter for inquiry as to why that should be so. I am informed that on the Continent flats can be built as cheaply as houses. Why should flats cost so much more in this country? I should have thought that that was a matter for fruitful inquiry. I feel that there is so much that we ought to look into that it is difficult to be dogmatic about this problem. I hope my noble friend Lord Listowel will not mind my saying that. It is sometimes easy to talk a little superficially about building new towns in Suffolk. After all, you have to get people to go and live there. I presume that Suffolk is sparsely inhabited for very good reasons—one of which may well be that people do not want to live there. We cannot start a new town unless we can be sure that people will go to live there.

Furthermore, the essential factor in a new town is industry. One of the reasons why the new towns catering for London have been built where they are is that it was essential to ensure that industry would be prepared to come there. It would have been much more favourable to build the new towns a little further away, but then came the problem of whether industry which had hitherto been dependent upon a London market would go the extra twenty or thirty miles—it turns on the distance there and back which a lorry can travel in one day, and so on. All those matters require the most detailed and complicated investigation before one can make a decision. I assure noble Lords, and the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, in particular, that all these towns, including Crawley, were carefully considered from the point of view of siting.

Now may I say a word about the views of Viscount Gage? He has quite properly questioned the policy. I think it is right that in this connection the policy should be questioned from lime to time. I said at the outset that we are in danger of getting into a rut in assuming that what was a good idea five years ago continues to be a good idea. Well, let us examine it. I am not very happy about the fact that a policy which was designed for dispersal is not altogether achieving that purpose. People are coming into London; houses which are vacated by people who go to live in the new towns are being reoccupied by people who come in. Factory premises and other premises are being reoccupied. That may not be the whole truth—some of then are and some are not, and some are being used for other purposes. Where a person vacates a house which is not fit for habitation, I hope it is the case that it is not reoccupied. This is a matter that needs Ito be looked at carefully, to ensure that as a matter of course the expenditure to which the nation is being put at the present time in building new towns is not being thrown away through both industrial premises and houses being reoccupied as fast as they are vacated.

Of course, the same remarks would apply to the policy of expanded towns. I believe that the policy is right; I believe that by and large there is no other way of providing for the population in the new conditions that we want, with greater space and better conditions, than by some such policy as new towns. But I think we ought to be quite sure that this policy is producing the remit, and that we are not merely going back to what was happening before the war—to more and more of the population of this country gravitating to London, until, as before the war, Greater London represented about one-quarter of the population of the country.

The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, referred to offices. He sees a large number of offices going up in London. Here, again, I think that there is a case for inquiry. Are we building far too many offices in London? Is the result going to be that we shall attract people into Lon don? We endeavour to restrict industry, but we do not appear to be restricting offices, and it would be a shocking thing if London became a city of clerical workers and nothing else. I admit that there is a certain amount of planning control as regards change of user, but there does not seem to be much planning control in areas where offices previously existed. It appears that where there was, before the war, a block of fifty offices, when those are demolished new buildings go up with a hundred offices or more. That aspect should be looked at. Again I do not want to be dogmatic and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will appreciate that I am not intending to criticise anybody. I am merely trying to make a case for further examination of the problem, to ensure that steps taken to control it are really effective.

I could not follow the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and did not agree with him in his desire to provide complete freedom for the East Sussex County Council. They are an admirable body, but they must play their part in accepting, for dispersal purposes, a certain number of the population, not merely those people who wish to retire in the delectable surroundings of the numerous seaside resorts in the area of which the noble Viscount speaks. They must, I think, accept a certain number from London. But the noble Viscount is right when he says they wane to be satisfied that the problem is thus being solved, and that they are not merely accepting the burden of providing schools and other services—a heavy burden in the early days—without at least having the satisfaction that they are thereby helping to solve it. I agree that without that assurance they might very well hesitate.

These are somewhat discursive remarks but I hope I have satisfied your Lordships that the problem is not an easy one. One can be dogmatic: on either side, but we need here fresh thinking and definite information. On the agricultural side, for instance, there are many conflicting figures as to how much agricultural land has been lost. One gets enormous extremes on one side or the other. They certainly cannot both be right, and I would not suggest that the truth lies between the two, for it may not; one side may be wholly right. I should like an investigation into what we mean by "good agricultural land." I know that there is a definition, but do we accept that definition for this purpose? I should like to have the truth about the amount of agriculture which is produced in back gardens. My own instinct (it is only an instinct and I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, has more information than I have) is that he is right and that what is produced is limited and is not wholly what is required. There is no substitute. We cannot substitute for 100 acres of arable land, 1,000 gardens each of one tenth of an acre. There is all the difference in the world there. I hope that when the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, comes to reply he will be able to give the House an assurance that all these matters, which are at the moment the subject of controversy based upon inadequate data, will be re-examined. I hestitate to suggest another Committee, but it may well be that the right way to deal with this problem is to set up a Committee to look into the various questions upon which are based the future housing policy of this country.

4.35 p.m.

THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome this debate, not least because we in this House always enjoy hearing a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh—in fact, I do not know any speaker who commands more general regard and interest in the House. We particularly welcome the opportunity to discuss the broad issues of planning without being drawn into that labyrinth of legislative complexities which sometimes arises when we examine statutory provisions. I say that without any discourtesy to the draftsmen, for I well know the complexities.

The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is right: the present is a time of opportunity. I know that, in a sense, town and country planning is inevitably a very long business. None the less, there is now a real urgency—the noble Lord even used the word "crisis"—and I say that particularly because, over a very wide field, there is to-day a considerable measure of agreement. It is not just that we know what we would have done thirty years ago, for any child could say that. It is not just agreement among students and enthusiasts: it is agreement among the great body of local authorities which has gradually been built up. It is fair to say that to a very wide extent they are now accepting the broad principles of the Report made by Sir Montague Barlow of some fourteen years ago. He drew attention to the danger of industrial concentration and said that it constituted a social, economic and strategic problem which demanded immediate attention. I believe it can be said that the importance of the problem has now been accepted by the great body of local authorities in the country.

The extent of that agreement is that progress is no longer measured in terms of increased population or increased rateable value. I remember that when I was a member of a certain city council I used to look at the valuation and population figures rising year by year and, perhaps rather unthinkingly, regarded this as a sign of progress. We now know that those things are not a measure of progress. The measure of progress in our big cities is the quality of life afforded to the citizens, and the means which those cities can offer to provide a gracious way of living. The result is that we are specifically seeking to limit the size of our big towns and to reduce their population. This is, of course, no new idea. I believe that it is some thirty-five years since the Green Belt round London was first suggested by Sir Robert Unwin, and, of course, there was an immense amount of work done under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. What is new is the extent to which we are to-day gaining agreement on these broad issues, agreement which has been reached only after a great deal of co-operation and hard work among local authorities.

May I turn to the broader aspect of this matter? At this juncture it is, in a sense, a coincidence that we can now go forward with this policy of limitation not only without economic loss but with economic advantage. There is now no difficulty, as there was a hundred years ago, in getting power to any part of the country. New transport facilities have developed over the last fifteen or twenty years—not good enough, perhaps, but an improvement. There is the development of light industry: the extensive development of light industry is really only a matter of a decade or two in this country. Although this is a matter of a very long-term development, we can undoubtedly say that a start has been made. We have the machinery and it is being used. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, wondered whether any result had been produced. All I can say is that I think we can affirm that the increase in the population in Greater London has been checked. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I think, spoke of the more rapid increase of population which was taking place before the war. There is now a marked change.

The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, emphasised two points: first, the relief of congestion from overcrowded urban areas, secondly, the establishment of green belts to prevent an urban sprawl. In both these matters the full, active and enthusiastic support of the local authorities concerned is absolutely essential. This is necessarily a slow business. I think it is fair to say, on the green belt side of this problem, that considerable, if slow, progress has been made. There was the pre-war Act; there was Sir Patrick Abercrombie's Greater London Plan, and the 1947 Town Planning Act. I think we can say now that the Green Belt of London is assured, and that all the local authorities concerned are resolutely determined to insist on its proper maintenance.

The position is perhaps not quite so satisfactory in the provincial cities. In most cases, I think, the appropriate areas are being preserved by administrative action. I should like to emphasise that to define these areas as green belts would be a considerable start and would strengthen the hands of those who have to administer planning control there. The public, I believe, understand what a green belt is, and they are very ready to support it. They would understand better exactly what it is and, I believe, would find it easier to maintain, if a suggestion which I have in mind were adopted. I wish to make it clear that I am expressing only a personal view, but I often wonder whether in some areas it would not be possible to put up notices, perhaps on the roads, stating: "This is a green belt," so that people would have some idea which were the areas immediately concerned. I think it would be a good thing if such areas were defined on the ground and not simply on the map.

The Minister has said—and I would re-emphasise his policy—that it: is our clear duty to prevent further unrestricted sprawl. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said that the green belt should be sacrosanct. To show that we are taking action, it is worth recording here that in the last two years, as a result of the dismissal by the Minister of appeals, 1,700 acres have been retained as green areas. That figure does not take into account any applications for building which were refused by the local authorities before they came to the Minister. The establishment of green belts does bring out into sharp relief the problem of decongestion in housing and industry from our large conurbations. We have now reached a stage when, within a short time, there will be little or no room left for building houses inside the green belt at all. That applies to all our big conurbations, whether Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester or, indeed, London itself.

That is the position. It is a position which will raise a problem of policy. The long-term policy of all Parties, I think, has been the decongestion of large cities —

VISCOUNT HUDSON

May I interrupt the noble Earl to ask one question? Has he any figures showing the amount of land in green belts which has been lost. He says that 1,700 acres have been saved. How many have been lost? It is quite an appreciable amount I should think.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am afraid that I have not the figures. I should have doubted whether such figures would show that the acreage lost in green belt areas is very great. London, of course, is the only one of our great towns which is approaching maturity in this matter of the green belt at the present time. If the noble Viscount goes back far enough, I would agree with him that when this idea was first mooted considerable areas were lost; but I should doubt whether very much has been lost since 1948 and 1949. I say that with reserve, of course, without seeing the figures.

Reverting to the measures taken to relieve congestion, let me refer, first, to the new towns. We have now, including the Scottish towns, fifteen new towns in various stages of development, but only eight are effective from the point of view of the decongestion of London. In these eight new towns it is fair to say that there has been very satisfactory progress. Some 25,000 houses have already been completed, and 163 firms of varying types are now in operation in these towns. There are now some 8.000 houses in various stages of construction, and 53 factories are going up at the present time. I should like to emphasise the importance of making sure that this decongestion is not regarded simply as a question of population, but, equally, as a question of industry. This principle that we should not get into a system of dormitory suburbs is fundamental. Industry and population must move together, and in this the new towns have been particularly successful.

The second development, which is more recent, is that coming under the Town Development Act, 1952. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me whether, if this effort fails, we shall go over to the creation of further new towns. I think it is a little premature to put that question. What I can assure the noble Earl is that the main policy of decongestion is one which the Minister has very much at heart. He cannot interfere in individual cases, for he is in this embarrassment: he may have an appeal for planning permission made to him personally. But in principle he is behind the policy and in that way would give the noble Earl or the London County Council all possible support. It is a matter to which we attach very great importance.

I should next like to say something about the advantage of expanding town development over new towns. In the first place, it brings the local authorities concerned—by which, I mean the local authority of the receiving area and the local authority of the exporting area—into full co-operation. I think it is not unfair to say that in some places, in the initial stages, new towns were not greatly welcomed by the local authorities concerned. This method, however, gets over the difficulty by bringing in the local authorities at the earliest possible stage. The advantage of building on an existing township at once becomes apparent. I was greatly encouraged by what the noble Viscount, Lord Gage said at one point in his speech. He was, I thought, suspicious of this expanding town idea, but he went on to say that this sort of thing might help Newhaven. Here was one place which, it might be argued, could be put forward as a candidate for this sort of expansion. That is exactly the sort of thing we have in mind. There may be one town here, another there; and if we can pick up one or two like that we shall be only too glad to do so.

Other advantages of building on an existing township are that a certain number of services, such as roads, sewers, schools, power and so on, are already available; and already a general social life of the community is in existence. In the early stages of a new town that does not exist, though as time goes on, of course, they overcome that difficulty. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, emphasised the need for persuasion in regard to these new areas. He suggested that the easiest way to persuade was by fairly liberal grants to local authorities. I should not have thought that the arrangements announced at the end of last month were altogether unsatisfactory: certainly we very much hope they will be sufficient to prove attractive to both parties. I like Lord Listowel's comparison of this with the quality of mercy, because it is our intention that it should benefit both the exporter and the receiver.

I would only say this about progress. So far, about fifteen to twenty small towns are considering the possibility of relieving expansion in the larger overcrowded towns, and I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that there is no intention of confining this sort of development to any arbitrarily limited number of towns. Clearly, one has to start somewhere, and the scheme in principle should have very wide and flexible applications. Two schemes, at Bletchley and Swindon, have already started, and over 1,000 families from London have been rehoused there. At Bletchley it is proposed to build 3,000 houses, which will accommodate about 10,000 people from London, while Swindon will take about 20,000 people from London over ten years. In both cases, corresponding industrial development will take place, either by the creation of new industries or by the expansion of existing industries. There is a small scheme at Aylesbury. In Lancashire, Worsley will take about 15,000 people from the Salford housing list in the course of ten years. This scheme is already well on its way. In Manchester and Birmingham, negotiations are going ahead between the county, borough and district councils with a view to the reception of the overspills of these cities.

Perhaps I may say a word about Glasgow, although it does not strictly fall within the terms of the Town Development Act, 1952, which does not apply to Scotland. The only urban area with a major overspill problem in Scotland is Glasgow, where some 300,000 people will have to be rehoused outside the city boundaries. The overspill, therefore, is comparable in size with the overspill from the London County Council area. The Government intend to establish a new town at Cumbernauld capable of accommodating 50,000 people, 40,000 of whom, under arrangements agreed with Glasgow Corporation, will come from Glasgow's waiting list. However, this is not nearly sufficient, and the matter is one of urgency, as all the sites within the city's boundaries will be exhausted by 1957–58. The Secretary of State has therefore invited the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee to undertake investigations into the possibility of the provision by neighbouring 'kcal authorities for the reception of Glasgow's overspill and into their willingness to do so. This Committee have also been asked to submit a phased programme and to make suggestions on the principles suitable to Scottish local government conditions which may require to he embodied in town development legislation for Scotland.

I was also interested in the suggestion that offices should be moved away from congested areas. I see no reason why offices should not be centred outside the congested areas. Of course, the heads of firms have to meet visitors, make contacts with markets and so on; but the staffs which are doing routine work could well be located outside. The Government themselves have moved certain of their branches and will continue to look out for possibilities of moving out more.

There has been a good deal of talk, both in this debate and the other, about flats. I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said the question was a little academic, and I rather agree with him. The real answer is the extreme urgency of building houses. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, gave the number of flats as compared with houses up to now as 15 or 18 per cent., and that is a comparatively small figure. He said that the vast majority of people prefer a house and garden and I am sure that that is probably true; but if people were offered either a house and garden twenty miles away or a flat near their work, I wonder whether the percentage would be quite so high. I do not know the answer to that question; possibly the noble Lord would know better than I do. The real answer is that in congested areas big corporations have to use to the maximum extent the ground that is available for rehousing.

The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, brought out the fact that in new housing areas there were a number of costs which may not have to be incurred when building flats in existing cities, and that in comparing the two, it was important to take these into account. 'There is the other side of the case. Suppose we succeeded in transferring population and industry from congested areas, there is a certain danger that some places would become what is known as "hollow." If we are to get the 6 million houses about which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has spoken, we have to use for the time being all possible means of getting houses. I wonder whether the conflict between agriculture and housing is really as acute as it is said to be. It is Government policy not to take the most valuable agricultural land if that can be avoided. Various questions have been asked about the true statistical position. The replies given were strictly statistical, but when it comes to taking account of farm land and marginal land on the edges of sheep farms, then we could reach almost any figure. On one occasion during the war, when a careful examination, I believe under the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, was made of the area under smallholdings, it was found that a certain number of farms had not been included. Therefore I think the figures must have a qualified acceptance. I certainly concede that at the present time we are taking over 30,000 acres a year of agricultural land for housing.

There was a good deal of discussion on the question of the co-ordination of Departments. It. is really no good trying to set someone up as a planning dictator, because if any problem arises it may be one which it is proper for the Board of Trade to consider, or it may be for the Minister of Agriculture, or the Minister of Supply, to consider. It is impossible to conceive that one Department could take a decision without fully consulting the others. They have to do that, without the slightest doubt at all. We should certainly be happy to look at the machinery and if the noble Lord can give any examples we will gladly see whether the machinery could not be made to work more smoothly. But each Department must play its part and must examine any claim which affects it. The location of industry is not a separate thing; it is an essential and integral part of planning. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said that there was a good deal of disconnection between various Departments and that he had a great difficulty in getting answers to agree with each other. That may well be true, but I am not at all sure that he would not rather have that than that all Departments should speak with one voice. I suspect that when he deals with the Departments, the noble Viscount plays one off against the other, with the skill he shows in other fields, and I dare say the differences between the Departments do not altogether prevent him from achieving his objects.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that when the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government do not agree, somebody has to decide which Department gets what it wants? The question I asked the noble Earl—and perhaps he will be good enough to reply —is whether the Board of Trade will continue to have the higher priority where there is any conflict with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, or whether, in dealing with industry for these expanding towns, the Ministry of Housing will have at least as high a degree of priority as the Board of Trade?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Earl raises the question of priorities. I think he knows as well as anybody else what happens when two Government Departments disagree; I do not need to explain that to him. The Government themselves reserve the right to try to persuade appropriate firms to go to the development areas. It is no good saying that the Board of Trade have their way. There is no doubt that we have to persuade these firms, and that is a pretty ticklish business, as everyone knows who has had any experience. I do not think it is of much use talking about priorities in this connection. The Board of Trade looks at every application on its merits. The experience of the new towns shows that development areas and overspill movements do not conflict in practice as much as they might be supposed to do in theory. The new towns have had their fair share. It must always be remembered that overspill means overspill of industry as well as of population; the two things go together. It is no good having industry without having population. The real answer—and I am sure this is the case—is that there is room for both, and I think there is evidence to show it.

The other point, which is an important one, is a question again raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, as to whether this is a merry-go-round in which people go in as quickly as other people go out. I recognise that that is really the root of the whole matter. I would say this to the noble Viscount: that it is virtually impossible in the cities to build new houses except in replacement of old ones. So the actual population per acre is not likely to increase; in fact, it is bound to decrease. But the crux of the matter is that industry should not step in and continue work on the old factory site. We have given a lot of consideration to this matter, and I am afraid there is only one solution—namely, for the local authority to buy up the factory; and in order to help them to do this the Government are prepared to pay 50 per cent. of the loss involved in such a transaction. I am sure that anybody who thinks of it will realise that if you persuade a man to go away—in fact, if you encourage him to—you must allow him value for the premises which have been vacated. I do not think there is any way to get round that. I recognise that the crux of the matter is to reduce the volume of industry which exists here. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked one other question about refusing permission to sell as soon as negotiations start. We have not power to do that, and I feel it would be going too far. Designations can be made for compulsory purchase as soon as agreement is reached, and I do not think we can go further than that.

If this debate has helped to get the policy of the Government rather better understood—I do not know whether it has or not—then it has certainly served a useful purpose. I should like to emphasise that what we need is close co-operation between the exporting and the receiving authorities. This raises immense problems of adjustment of outlook on both sides; but vast conurbations cannot and must not be allowed to continue sprawling out. Such action raises every conceivable problem and aggravates it to an intolerable degree. We have an immense task in front of us which will take a long time, but we have—and I believe to-day's debate has shown it—a wide measure of agreement. What we want now is agreement between local authorities to give effect to this policy. It is for that reason that the present is a period of importance and opportunity, and why the Government commend this Resolution to the House and ask them to accept it.

5.3 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, before the noble Earl on the Woolsack puts the Question. I should like to say that I have every reason to be grateful both to the, House and to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for the way in which this Motion has been received. I trust that my noble friend will not think me unduly carping if I revert to one point which I do not think he dealt with, asked whether he: would ask the Minister to review the subsidy scale. My noble friend, if I may respectfully say so, glossed a little over that by saying that tie local authorities in the great cities have no choice but to build to the maximum in the centres. That is not entirely correct. These great authorities have a certain freedom of choice as to what they will build: whether it be houses or flats on the site, and at what density. My point is that the present scale of subsidy financially influences the local authorities unduly in favour of flats on expensive sites, and that is why I want my noble friend to ask the Minister to subject the whole thing once again to close scrutiny.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, if I may reply to the noble Lord, I would point out that I was dealing with the general principle and explaining why it was not possible, taking the extreme view, to cut out flats altogether. These matters are subject to review, and I will give an undertaking that this subject will be looked at again.

On Question, Resolution agreed to.