asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he will introduce legislation to give the district valuer discretion in fixing the rateable value of buildings occupied by charities.

No, Sir. Local authorities can provide financial assistance to charities, and this is better than departing from uniformity in rating assessments.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a long tradition to allow local people to express their sympathy in this way, and that working men's charities, trade union charities, British Legion branches, and a host of others, have benefited? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider changing this position in any legislation that may be coming?

It is in many ways a good thing. The point is that in the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, the Education Act, 1944, and the National Assistance Act, 1948, charities may be assisted by local councils. That is very much better than having a hugger-mugger assessment.

What is hugger-mugger?

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning what control he has over the proceedings of the Electricity Commissioners in the preparation of hydro-electric schemes, especially in the area of national parks; and whether he will order that publicity shall be given to the proposed schemes in the Lake District.

The British Electricity authority must seek specific parliamentary powers for any such scheme, and must first obtain permission from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, with whom I am in close touch. No such scheme has yet been proposed for the Lake District.

Can the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether his Ministry have the last word so far as amenities are concerned, especially in the national parks? Will he give an assurance that, whenever such a scheme is thought about, full publicity will be given to it, so that local feeling may be consulted?

As regards national parks, I naturally have a predisposition in favour of amenity rather than utility. I think the point is made clear in my answer. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power has to authorise the presentation of a Bill. He discusses it with me before he authorises it, and even if it is presented there are many opportunities for opposition still remaining.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, with modern methods of engineering and architecture, beauty can be retained? In view of our serious economic needs, will my right hon. Friend do nothing to impair the production of power?

It is all a question of balancing one project with another. Quite frankly, I am against a lot of projects for the Snowdonia area. The Lake District has not yet come into it.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he has considered the view of the Central Advisory Water Committee Gathering Grounds Sub-Committee that many gathering grounds could be put to greater agricultural production than at present; what is the policy of his Department in this matter; and what action he is taking to implement the committee's recommendations.

The Government have accepted all the recommendations of the Report. My predecessor sent copies of it to all water undertakings.

Is the Minister aware that, in the meantime, if he takes no action, large quantities of food are being wasted? This land is potentially able to produce a great deal more food than it now is producing. Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will take action to implement the recommendations of the Committee?

The growing of food by farmers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Water undertakings are, for the moment, in consultation with his representative to see what can be done. I am wholly in sympathy, but the responsibility is to my right hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware that certain water boards are very reactionary in their views about sheep?

In that case my right hon. Friend may have the sheep moved.

Although the actual growing of food is not the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman, his is the responsibility for removing the restrictions which are at present preventing the growing of food? Is he aware that over some 3,000 acres out of the 400,000 acres there is complete prohibition, even of keeping cattle? Will the Minister please see that there is some urgency in this matter of removing these restrictions?

If my right hon. Friend says that it is necessary in order to grow more food, I shall be very sympathetic and do what I can.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture?

I do, daily.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he has any statement to make on the report on water conservation schemes submitted to the Welsh Board of Health by his Department, which proposes that Llanthony Valley should be turned into a reservoir; and whether he will give an assurance that no steps will be taken affecting this valley without prior consultation with the Society for the Preservation of Rural Wales and the hon. Member for Monmouth.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he will arrange for the Breconshire County Council, and the appropriate district councils within the county, to be represented at any preliminary discussions that are to take place with the Welsh Board of Health upon a recommendation contained in the South Wales Development Area Water Supply Survey for the construction of a new impounding reservoir in the Honddu Valley; and whether he will give an assurance that the National Park Commission will be consulted.

The Welsh Board of Health will discuss this recommendation shortly with the Breconshire County Council and the Hay Rural District Council. The National Parks' Commission also will be consulted. If a draft Order authorising a reservoir is submitted, there will be a public local inquiry at which any authority or person interested will be able to state his views.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is perhaps one of the most lovely valleys in the British Isles, and will he hesitate a long time before countenancing the submerging of this valley or any other part of my constituency?

The hon. Gentleman will be able to give evidence on behalf of the about-to-be-submerged tenth.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether a decision has yet been made with regard to the suggestion made by his Department to the Canvey Urban District Council that untreated sewage from the new town of Basildon should be delivered to the River Thames.

My Department has made no suggestions on this subject to the Canvey Urban District Council.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an inspector from his Department has made such a suggestion and that it was conveyed in writing to the Canvey Urban District Council? I have a copy of it here and am willing to show it to the right hon. Gentleman afterwards. How can he reconcile the making of such a suggestion with the passing through this House, no doubt with his approval, of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Bill? Can he give a categorical assurance that he will countenance no such proposal?

In reply to that rather long question, I am looking into all the alternative methods of furnishing proper water and sewerage services to the new town of Basildon. A discussion took place only yesterday in my Department, and I am giving the matter close personal attention. I hope before long to make a positive statement on the subject.

How is it that an inspector in the right hon. Gentleman's Department can make a proposal of this kind and that it can be conveyed to the local authority without the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman?

If the hon. Member will give me the evidence on which he bases this assertion, I will look into it in due course.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning how many cases of disputed assessments have been heard by local valuation courts under the Local Government Act, 1948, since 1st February, 1950; and what has been the total cost of these courts to date.

Up to the 31st March, 1951, 12,000 cases had been heard, and the total cost of the local valuation panels amounted to £193,000. Later figures are not available.

Does not that mean that the cost has been something in the neighbourhood of £16 a case? Is not that very high? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider saving a great deal of money by putting these panels back on to a part-time basis and using local government officers?

The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is a matter of arithmetic—I have not worked it out. The cost compares very favourably with that of the former assessment committees, who spent over £305,000 in the year 1948–49. Under this scheme we have fewer panels and a smaller membership, which makes for a saving. If any further saving can be made I shall be glad to make it

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he can now make a further statement in respect to the inquiries made by his Department into the gypsy problem.

I am hoping to arrange for a survey of this whole problem to be made.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Romany people are deeply grateful for the excellent work done by his Department? Will he press on with it?

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning the total amount in each of the financial years after 1st April, 1948, claimed under the Local Government Act, 1948, by members of local authorities in respect of travelling allowances, subsistence allowances and payment for loss of earnings, respectively, giving the figures for the county councils, county borough councils, non-county borough councils and district councils, separately.

This information is not available.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say whether there has been much abuse of the system? Have there been many prosecutions?

No, Sir, I do not think so. I could not get the information which the hon. and gallant Member desires without asking local authorities to fill in a lot more forms, and I did not want to do that.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planing (1) on what principles capital expenditure for making up private streets is allocated between different local authorities; how much was allocated this year for the rural districts of Lancashire; and how long at the present rate of allocation it will take to make up all existing private streets in these rural districts;

(2) whether the allocation of capital expenditure for making up private streets gives any special priority to private streets when there are no other means of access to council housing estates.

I divide this capital expenditure between local authorities who apply to me, according to my estimate of their relative needs. The Lancashire County Council may spend £22,000 on this work this year; and will distribute this sum between the rural districts. Without asking all the rural district councils for a return I could not answer the last part of Question No. 19.

Does my right hon. Friend think that the estimate of one rural district—the Whiston Rural District—that it would take 100 years was not typical; and might I ask him, in regard to Question 20, whether he does not think that where a local authority is using a private street as the only means of access to a municipal housing estate, they should have some share of the responsibility for making it up for this extra traffic?

The Lancashire County Council are a very efficient local authority and I have no doubt that they will look into all these matters. So far as this problem is concerned, it is the result of private jerrybuilding before the war. It does not arise with regard to local authority estates now because we make up the roads as we go.

Is it not a terrifying thought to think that the replies given to this and other Questions reveal so much dictatorial power in the hands of one man in this country?

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he has taken note of the objections sent to him by the Kent County Council's County Planning Committee to the proposal to convert Mr. Fegan's Homes, Goudhurst, into a detention centre; and what action he now proposes to take in the light of these objections.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are arranging for these objections to be discussed with the Kent County Council.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Kent County Council has offered to find an alternative, if that would be helpful and, in view of the overwhelming objections to this scheme, surely some attention should be paid to their offer to the right hon. Gentleman?

We will certainly consider sympathetically any alternative proposals.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning which bodies have lodged objections to the proposed grenade range at Lea Copse, Finchampstead; and on what grounds.

The Berkshire branch of the National Farmers' Union and the British Electricity Authority. The latter said they would have to divert an overhead cable. I am circulating the Farmers' Union letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the Minister say whether the British Electricity Authority informed him that the cost of moving the overhead cable would be about £8,000?

I do not think it would be very much. The point about this case, which the hon. Gentleman has discussed with me several times, is that the War Office some time ago felt that this was the best site. Having heard all the evidence, I gave my agreement, and if the War Office were a bit quicker in taking it up, no doubt the hon. Gentleman would be quite pleased.

"We understand from the Hon. Peter Remnant, M.P., that you are kindly prepared to consider any substantial representations on grounds of public interest from the National Farmers' Union which would justify your reaching the decision to hold a Public Enquiry into the proposal to acquire the above land for a Grenade and P.I.A.T. Range. Accordingly, we desire to call your attention to the following important factors:

We hope that the foregoing factors are sufficient to convince you that this controversial matter is not one which affects only the personal interests of two comparatively small owner-occupiers, but that it is one of such wide public interest as to warrant your holding a local Enquiry before an irrevocable step is taken."

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he can give an assurance that there will be no cut in the steel allocation to war-damaged cities.

I cannot yet say what the position will be.

Does the Minister appreciate what a raw deal the bomb-damaged cities have had, and will he increase the allocation, rather than cut it, because we can never re-build our bomb-damaged cities with the allocation we now have?

The bomb-damaged cities scheme applies only to shops and offices in the centre. It does not touch housing at all. Portsmouth have not built their allocation. I have given them a bigger allocation of houses than they have built. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take that back.

There is no truth in that whatever.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether his attention has been called to the increasing tendency in some parts of the country to ignore existing regulations about smoke abatement; and whether he will issue a circular to local authorities urging them to pay greater attention to this problem in the interests of health, amenity and fuel saving.

I have no evidence of any such increasing tendency. But if the hon. Member will give me any examples, I shall be glad to look into them.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is a great deterioration since 1939 due to lack of direction from the Government.

No, Sir. I think there is less smoke than there was.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he will now make a statement regarding the allocation of houses in new towns, especially in regard to the new town of Hemel Hempstead.

Houses in new towns are allocated to people who will work there either as building trade workers or in factories.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the natural anxiety of adjacent local authorities regarding the allocation? Is the Minister prepared to set up a committee of representatives of the various local authorities concerned? In regard to Hemel Hempstead, is he prepared to receive a deputation from Wembley and other local authorities?

I do not want to set up extra committees. My experience is that they only clog action. The Hemel Hempstead Corporation has so far allocated houses to workers from Willesden, Acton, Hendon, Wembley and Harrow. We must prevent the new towns becoming dormitories. People must work near where they live.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning in which areas there is to be a decrease in house building this year on account of the needs of the defence programme; and in which areas this is to be compensated for by an increase in order to maintain the national figure of 200,000 houses.

I have not so far found it necessary to reduce the housing programme in any area because of the defence programme.

Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast that this might occur, and ought not people to be warned whether they will get fewer houses or more? Is not this a very "hugger-mugger" proposal?

As I have stated in the House I have already increased the housing allocations of more than 300 local authorities who seem to me to be making good progress with building. So far I have not had formally to reduce the allocation of any local authority, but as events move forward we shall take account of that.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman contemplate increasing the allocation of houses if he instructed local authorities to build smaller houses or granted them a bigger allocation on condition that they erected smaller houses, instead of leaving it merely to them?

That is another question.

Is it not true that many local authorities are not making full use of the allocation already made to them? How will my right hon. Friend deal with this?

By switching a lot of their allocation to those who do better.

Will the right hon. Gentleman publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT or put in the Library a statement showing the authorities to whom he has authorised increases, and the numbers?

I was asked that question before, and I rather hesitated to do so because I did not want unduly to stir up jealousy.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning how far his policy of allowing an increase in the number of houses permitted to be built in areas where he has been satisfied that this can be done has been modified as the result of the new capital investment programme.

Not at all. Our aim is to build 200,000 houses a year, and, if fewer can be built in some areas, to build more in another.

But how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his repeated statement that any application by any local authority for an extra allocation of licences will be considered on its merits, with the limitation of his right hon. Friend of the number of houses to be built to a rigid figure of 200,000?

Some are building less, some are building more. When I get an application from a local authority, I always consider it on its merits. As I have said repeatedly, I have increased the total allocations for more than 300 local authorities and I have increased the proportion above the one in five for quite a number—without notice I could not say how many—of local authorities that have approached me.

Does that mean that in no circumstances, whatever the merits of the applications he receives, will the right hon. Gentleman authorise more than 200,000 houses?

No, Sir. It is not a question for me to authorise but for the builders to build. If they can build more than 200,000 I shall be delighted.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning how the number of slum dwellings demolished during the five years ended 31st March, 1951, compares with the number demolished during the five years ended 31st March, 1939.

Thirty-one thousand, seven hundred and eighteen since the end of the war, and 219,669 in the five years ended 31st March. 1939.

Bearing in mind the promises made from 1945 onwards by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the clearance of the slums in double quick time, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider the post-war figures extremely disappointing?

No, Sir. It is a different situation. In the '30's we had a mass of poverty and unemployment in this country. Now we have full employment with a good standard of life, and the people can afford rents which they could not under Tory misrule.

In repairing war damaged properties and building as many new houses as we could, have we not taken very much the better course.

My hon. Friend is right Slum clearance is now an appendage to a positive housing programme. In the years before the war it was a permanent part of policy and large numbers of houses were standing empty.

May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the slum problem is not now as serious as it was before the war?

I cannot speak for Scotland, but in England that is so.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether, in view of the fact that the number of applicants for private building licences in the Stroud rural district is 125 and that only 11 licences were granted for 1951, he will increase the council's allocation.

If the council ask for an increase I shall be glad to consider it.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning (1) why he has provided that post-1918 houses in Birmingham shall be assessed at 10 per cent. less than similar houses in Liverpool;

(2) why there is a variation of 36 per cent. in the tables he has issued for estimating hypothetical 1938 costs of construction under the Local Government Act, 1948.

The reason is because local building costs vary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in 1938 building costs in Liverpool were lower than they were in Birmingham, and would he be good enough to explain on what evidence his predecessor based these tables?

I do not speak for what may have been the case before the war, but at the present time they are higher in Liverpool than in Birmingham.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these tables relate to 1938 building costs?

No, Sir, my statement relates to present building costs.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he is aware of houses in Cardiff remaining empty for more than six months after the expiry of the lease because the ground landlord is seeking an excessive price for the property; and what action he proposes to take.

If my hon. Friend will give me particulars, I shall be glad to look into them.

Will the Minister bear in mind that while I shall gladly supply him with the evidence, there is nothing more infuriating to those thousands on the waiting list for a council house than seeing this sort of thing happen?

No doubt that is so. Of course it must be remembered that any local authority can compulsorily buy, if need be, such houses left empty, and I have stated more than once that I shall give full support to any local authority wishing to use compulsory powers for this purpose.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Minister of Works concerning a house which was left empty by a Government Department for over two years, and should he not set an example before taking on the rôle of Satan rebuking sin?

Perhaps the hon. Member, in the sense of sin being rebuked, will give me the evidence.

Is the Minister aware that the thing which infuriates people, especially in places like Cardiff, is the fact that the Government have signally failed to produce the houses they promised?

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if, in view of the recent increase in the cost of new houses, he will take steps to meet the request of those councils which have put forward plans to reduce to some extent the size of the three-bedroom type of house, so as to economise in the amount of material and labour required.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning, in view of the hardship among many young people who cannot marry because of lack of accommodation, whether he will recommend that local authorities should include in their housing programme a proportion of houses so constructed or adapted as to be temporarily suitable for two or more young married couples who may not require more than two rooms and a kitchenette for each couple during the first years of their married lives.

I would refer both the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to my circular to housing authorities on 28th April last, of which I am sending them copies.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to this, because it is proving most unfair to some local authorities—one of which he has heard about—where, for instance, the whole of this year's allocation is being confined to two-bedroom flats, which results in a large saving of labour and materials, and yet the total cannot be increased?

I think the hon. Member will find, if he reads my circular, that it is very sympathetic to the point of view of local authorities who wish to make variations from any rigid code. I have definitely advised authorities to continue the programme set up under my predecessor of having a larger proportion of one and two bedroom houses.

Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear to those who apply that there must be no reduction of living standards in these houses?

That, of course, is laid down extremely clearly in the circular. Provided that living conditions are retained at the proper standards—subject to that overriding provision—I am most anxious to encourage the inventive skill of architects and local authorities to design houses.

Is the Minister aware that it is the considered opinion of housing authorities throughout the country that a bigger allocation of smaller houses would be much more effective than his advisory circular?

I have no evidence of that at all.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he is aware that the present regulation by which expenditure incurred by local authorities for improvement grants must be deducted from the amount of their authorised grant for building licences are preventing useful progress in the installation of efficient heating and cooking appliances, as well as adequate sanitation; and if he will reconsider this regulation.

So long as the cost of installation does not exceed £100, no licence is required.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this amount is very small indeed and that it is preventing many essential improvements, resulting in the further deterioration of many houses?

I do not think that is really so. The cost of the equipment itself does not require to be licensed. The cost of installation must not exceed £100 without licence, but I am advised that in practically every case, whatever the cost of the equipment, the actual cost of the installation should not exceed £100.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he will amend Section 43 of the Housing Act, 1949, so as to permit the maximum selling price of a house built under private licence to be increased in proportion to increases in the cost of building.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning (1) if he will consider lifting the resale price control now on houses which were built three or more years ago:

(2) if he will consider removing the resale price control on new houses three years after first purchase from the builder.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an owner of a house who had it built under private licence, say, two years ago, and now has to move from the district owing to a change of employment, will have to sell the house for a lower price than he will have to pay for a similar one? Does not the Minister think that this causes great hardship? Does it not also cause great hardship to builders whose building work is delayed by shortage of materials or bad weather?

The nearer we can get to a price freeze the happier I shall be on all these matters.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the current price being permitted for houses built under licence is at least £1,000 more than it was at the time when this restriction was imposed, and that this fact calls for a review of the 1946 arrangements?

Not from the point of view of the purchaser of the house.

asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he is aware that housing development is being retarded in Stoke-on-Trent because of the shortage of mild steel bars; and what action he will take to assist in this matter.

Yes, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject on 28th June.

Does my right hon. Friend mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to Stoke-on-Trent? I did not hear any reply of that kind. Moreover, does my right hon. Friend not recognise that in this area, where there is mining subsidence, we cannot build houses until a modest amount of steel is forthcoming to put underneath them, and that work is at present being held up?

That is a difficulty not peculiar to Stoke-on-Trent; it is found also in London. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the statement to which I have referred, explained that there was a certain preferential treatment—"P.T. certificates," for short—in regard to demands for steel and that by that means we might be able to help some hard cases.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that large-scale capital expenditure is taking place in this area in order to increase the production of coal and that it is proposed to transfer hundreds of miners into the area? In view of this, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the area shall receive complete priority in order that the miners shall be housed when they are transferred there?

This is a Question about steel. I am entirely in favour of houses being built for miners in the areas to which they go in order to increase the total coal production, but this is a Question about steel.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that houses in this area cannot be built without a steel raft because of the difficulties of mining subsidence, and, therefore, will he look into this matter in order that the houses for the miners shall be given complete priority in all the materials which are required?

Of course, I want housing for miners to be given very high priority indeed.

Does the Minister not take into account in such cases the contribution being made by the mining industry in the export trade, and will he give them some priority? Surely he can look into this matter.

asked the Minister of Works the result of his consultations with the appropriate authorities relative to the opening of the Tower of London to visitors on Sundays.

I regret that at present I am unable to add to the reply given to a similar Question on 3rd July. Details are still under discussion.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware of the widespread disappointment of the many visitors who have gone to the Tower on a Sunday only to find it closed, particularly during Festival year? Cannot it be opened? Will he press that it shall be opened before very long?

I have considerable sympathy with the point now being put. There are a number of difficulties connected with those who will have to undertake the extra duties that must be overcome, but I will do my best.

Is it correct that a meeting has been held of all the warders of the Tower of London, who have unanimously expressed themselves as being opposed to the proposal for Sunday opening on the ground of the Sunday labour involved?

Get a new lot then.

I do not know about that, but, of course, the warders in the Tower could not take over responsibility for deciding policy.

Is the Minister aware that people who have been disappointed in this way have gone away calling the Tower after the name of one of its rather more famous constituent towers?

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that for the mass of the people of London who at present never go to the Tower, Sunday is the only day on which they could do so?

Yes. I think that on the whole everybody who has been into this matter and has seen the demand which exists will agree that it would be a good thing if the Tower could be opened accordingly. I was interested to see, when I was in Edinburgh, that Edinburgh Castle is open on Sundays and is very popular. I think that the example might well be followed in London.

asked the Minister of Works why the front wall of the Patent Office remains unrepaired so that 28 rooms remain unserviceable; and what has been the total cost to date of accommodating the staff displaced from these rooms.

The damage has not been repaired because it would be necessary to pull down and rebulid most of the north front of the Patent Office. This would not be worth while because it is intended to erect a new building for it as soon as resources can be found. The cost of accommodating the displaced staff has been approximately £9,000 up to date.

asked the Minister of Works whether his Department, before issuing building licences, consult the local authority in whose area the work is proposed.

Local authorities are normally consulted before licences are granted for building work in connection with the provision of local amenities.

There are many building projects which affect the development of a city or a town which are not necessarily local amenities—for example, industrial development of all kinds—but in which questions of health and planning and other matters arise. Ought not the Ministry to have the courtesy and level-headedness to consult with the local authority before giving a decision?

I think my hon. Friend will find that in practice we keep in touch with all those who might be affected by decisions of this kind, but that is quite a different thing from being bound to transfer our responsibility for the people.

asked the Minister of Works whether, to meet rising costs, he will increase the limits of outlay under which building licences are not necessary.

No. Sir.

Is not this a most reasonable request and, in view of the very substantial rise in costs, does it not meet the viewpoint of all concerned? Would it not help the housing problem? Is it just stubbornness, or what is the motive for saying "No"?

The motives for saying "No" were given in some detail in the House on 3rd July, as well as on 26th June, but apparently the hon. and gallant Member missed them. There are arguments on both sides. There is the argument in favour of raising the limits, but, obviously, there are also arguments on the other side at a time when the building programme is heavily strained and our labour force and resources are under very heavy pressure. I have come to the conclusion that in present circumstances the best course is to keep the limits where they are.

asked the Minister of Works how many public footpaths in Osterley Park have been closed to the public since the park became public pro perty; and how long these footpaths will remain closed.

No public footpaths have been closed by the Ministry of Works in that part of Osterley Park leased to it by the National Trust. It has, however, recently been agreed that a footpath crossing the area, which was closed some years ago, should be reopened. Instructions have been given that any obstructions to this footpath should be removed.

Is the whole of Osterley Park under the care of the Ministry of Works? Could the Minister explain how the Minister of Education comes into the picture?

The second part of that supplementary question should be addressed to the Minister of Education. The answer to the first part is, not the whole of it, but about 140 acres.

asked the Minister of Works how much floor space the Ministry of Materials will occupy; and where its offices will be.

Final details of the staff to be transferred to the Ministry of Materials are not yet known, but it is estimated that in London about 50,000 or 60,000 sq. ft. of accommodation formerly allocated to the Board of Trade will be transferred to the new Ministry. By the end of July the Ministry of Materials are expected to occupy about 40,000 sq. ft. of this accommodation in the new Whitehall Gardens building, Thames House North and Lacon House.

Are not the losses already incurred by nationalised industries sufficient proof that the control of industry is having disastrous effects? Why continue the folly of pouring more good money of the taxpayers' down the Socialist drain?

That point is quite clearly facetious.

asked the Minister of Works whether, having regard to the decision to curtail the programme of Government office building and the consequent suspension of further work on the proposed new Colonial Office building, he will give an assurance that, before a decision is taken to resume work on this project, the House will be informed and given an opportunity to reconsider the suitability of the plans.

As my predecessor told the right hon. Gentleman on the 13th March last, the proposals for the new Colonial Office building have been very fully considered and discussed in this House and in another place. The architect is preparing working drawings, but the decision to proceed with the superstructure of the new building will depend on the conditions prevailing when the drawings are ready. I do not think I should be justified at this late stage in inviting suggestions for further alterations to plans on which so much time and money have been spent.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House the assurance which is asked for in the Question, that before work is resumed on this building the House will be informed and given an opportunity to discuss the matter, should they so desire? Can he tell us whether this building comes under the curtailment of office building announced by the Chancellor recently?

The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is, "No, Sir." The answer to the second part is that it is obviously affected by the ban, but in any case we are not ready to rebuild.

asked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to prevent power cuts or load-shedding inter- rupting Parliamentary proceedings during the forthcoming winter.

The matter is under consideration.

In view of the prospects of power cuts of increased severity during the forthcoming winter, should not precautionary steps be taken now? Are we expected to conduct Parliamentary proceedings in the dark during power cuts?

If the hon. Member is still frightened at the prospect of being with more young ladies down below in the dark, I think we can take care of that. The real difficulty is, of course, that to solve the problem with alternative sources of supply is a very expensive business. I am at present looking into two or three possible alternative ways of dealing with the matter and, subject to cost, we will do what we can.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that to secure delivery of equipment of the sort we are discussing takes approximately 12 to 18 months, even with Government priority? Therefore, he ought to make up his mind pretty quickly about this matter.

That is not the only possible way of dealing with it. There is an alternative that would not require that amount of time.

Would the Minister bear in mind that it is much more important to prevent power cuts in the industrial Midlands than in Westminster?

asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that Mr. C. Willsher, a uniformed lighting attendant, who has served this House for 52 years, is an unestablished civil servant, 72 years of age, and retires on 11th August; and if he will take steps, on compassionate grounds, to secure him a pension and gratuity.

I am aware of Mr. Willsher's position. On his retirement he will be entitled to the normal gratuity payable to unestablished civil servants under the Superannuation Acts. I am afraid, however, that there is no provision in these Acts enabling a pension to be granted to an unestablished civil servant on compassionate grounds.

Is the Minister aware that the case of Mr. C. Willsher is typical of many others, and will he take steps to see that men who have so faithfully served the House for so many years are adequately provided for in their declining years?

Yes, but the hon. Member must be fair. This is the only case of its kind among the engineering staff. Mr. Willsher worked here from 1899. Therefore, 48 years of his service went by before the Labour Government came to power and could deal with this with an Act.

How can a man be serving in the House for 52 years and yet not be on the establishment?

As I have pointed out, since we came to power he could not be in that position; it was only under Tory Governments that he could be.

On a point of order, in view of the fact that you ruled yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that facetious questions were out of order, will you also rule that facetious replies are out of order?

I doubt if the political squibs of the right hon. Gentleman are of much use to Mr. Willsher, but should not this House set a superlatively good example?

I am sorry if hon. Members think I have been facetious, but there is the fact. We have taken care of those we could by means of a pension. In the case of Mr. Willsher, unfortunately, he was of such an age that before we could pass the Act he was too old for a pension, but he will in fact receive a gratuity. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] About £350. We have done our best to take care of him, but we could not give him a pension because of his age.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to make a statement upon the subject of lodging turns and other methods of increasing efficiency, discussions upon which were inaugurated by the Government on the occasion of the recent settlement of railway wage rates.

I am informed that these discussions are being conducted in a spirit of co-operation, and the Railway Executive and the trade unions, on 6th June, published a joint statement giving the results at that date. Discussions are continuing.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was a condition of this settlement that these important matters should be examined and a solution reached upon them? Can he say when we are going to hear what the decision is about lodging turns and overtime working, which are essential factors in the efficiency of the railway system?

If the hon. Gentleman will look at the statement, he will see that it had been agreed that the practice of employing knockers-up for footplate staff and guards for rosta turns of duty should be discontinued not later than 30th July, 1951, and an understanding has been reached on the subject of lodging turns which should result in better use of manpower and greater efficiency. I hope that the hon. Member will wait for the final statement.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement issued carefully avoided the two main points at issue, namely, any detailed reference to a decision on lodging turns and had nothing at all to say about overtime working?

The statement issued is not a final statement. I have told the hon. Member that discussions are continuing.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the general dissatisfaction with railway conditions in the Midlands has caused such a drift of labour away from the railways that the freight service will be brought almost to a standstill unless he does something soon?

Whenever one has a basis of full employment there is a difficulty in finding manpower.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that dissatisfaction will not be removed by imposing any decision from the Government, but only by agreement between the unions and the Executive?

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement as to the results of the consultations on the subject of inspectors inaugurated by the Government on the occasion of calling off the strike in the nationalised road haulage industry.

No, Sir. The consultations were jointly agreed as a result of a request by the trade union.

What has happened about these arrangements? Is this matter to be settled on the basis of discussions? If conditions of this kind are made part of a settlement, is it not reasonable that the hon. Gentleman should at some stage see what has happened as a result of those discussions? Are the inspectors still operating?

The chairman of the Road Haulage Executive and the general secretary of the union have met and had informal talks, following which there will be discussions between the two sides. I do wish that the hon. Member would not try to get the Government to hamper industry by trying to take the power of negotiation from the trade unions and the employers.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government themselves intervened and themselves laid down these conditions? Do they shelve all responsibility from that moment onwards?

The Government in fact are not intervening; discussions are taking place between the two sides of industry and only at a stage where we are asked by industry to intervene could we do so. I think it is better that both sides should settle this question amicably.

Will my hon. Friend resist the pressure to impose a settlement through this House or the Government and let the trade union or the people concerned settle the matter?

That is our object.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement on the composition and terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce.

Yes, Sir. The King has been pleased to approve the setting up of a Royal Commission to inquire into the law relating to marriage and divorce with the following terms of reference:

"To inquire into the law of England and the law of Scotland concerning divorce and other matrimonial causes and into the powers of courts of inferior jurisdiction in matters affecting relations between husband and wife, and to consider whether any changes should be made in the law or its administration, including the law relating to the property rights of husband and wife, both during marriage and after its termination (except by death), having in mind the need to promote and maintain healthy and happy married life and to safeguard the interests and well-being of children; and to consider whether any alteration should be made in the law prohibiting marriage with certain relations by kindred or affinity."

I am glad to be able to announce that Lord Morton of Henryton, M.C., will act as Chairman. I am not yet in a position to announce the names of the other members of the Commission.