asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if in accordance with his new plans, he will publish revised estimates of the various destinations of the products of the metal industries given in paragraphs 74–80 of the Economic Survey of 1952.

Since the estimates referred to relate mainly to the calendar year 1952, they are not likely to be seriously affected by any new plans made since the publication of the Economic Survey. It is clear, however, that the eventual reduction in civil investment in plant, machinery and vehicles will be considerably less than the Survey estimated. This is mainly because home deliveries of motor vehicles have been higher than allowed for.

Will not the changes which the right hon. Gentleman announced in the defence debate on 29th July have a certain effect on the destinations of the products of the metal industries?

I cannot go further than the answer which I have given, although, of course, all these different adjustments will appear as future figures are brought out.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement about the action he has taken to reduce the length of Government advertisements.

The Treasury issued a circular to all Government Departments on this subject in August. I hope that economies will result, but it is too early yet to assess them.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether one officer in each Department is made responsible for seeing that advertisements are as short and as cheap as possible?

I cannot interfere with the domestic habits of different Departments but, as far as I am concerned, the more economy that there is in advertising and other matters the better.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums of money have been given to Burma since 1945; and what amount is owed by Burma to Great Britain.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his Question of 21st April by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to achieve the bigger factory building programme for 1953.

Licences are to be issued for more industrial building, particularly for projects which will assist the balance of payments. The allocation of steel for factory building is to be raised, but it will still be necessary to adopt modern methods of construction which save steel.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this increased factory building programme is to be at the expense of other forms of building or is to be brought about by devoting a greater total of the national resources to the building industry as a whole?

There have, of course, to be adjustments in the total building programme to make this possible. As to the latter part of the supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman may be satisfied that the total building programme is within the scope of what I think the country can afford.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much this will interfere with the Government's housing programme?

The Government propose to go ahead with their housing programme and achieve results very much more remarkable for the families of Great Britain than those achieved by the late Administration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind, when planning the programme, that there is still a great deal of apprehension about any cessation of factory building in Scotland in case unemployment develops still further?

I am glad that the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) asked this Question. Nothing is more important to our country than to develop factory buildings and to develop productive industry in the interests not only of exports but also of home employment.

Will priority still be given to the Development Areas as a whole in this programme?

As the hon. Member knows, the Development Areas have special terms and their needs will certainly not be forgotten.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider abolishing the system by which the cost of postage is added to the value of the article purchased by a retailer, for the purpose of calculating Purchase Tax.

I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 10th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch). This matter is now being considered by the Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Frederick Grant, Q.C., who are looking into the rules for Purchase Tax valuation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a tax which appears to discriminate between those who can fetch an article and those who have to have it sent to them by post is rather unfair?

That is one of the reasons why the whole matter is being investigated.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the purchasing power of the £ has varied during the past year.

On the basis of the Interim Index of Retail Prices, the internal purchasing power of the £ fell by 1s. 3d., during the year to September, 1952, the latest date for which figures are available.

Is it not clear that there is no hope, or not much hope, of arresting this depression in the value of the £ so long as the fall in production which has taken place since the present Government took office is allowed to continue?

On the other hand, there are signs that, except in the case of food prices, which can be attributed to certain action taken last March—[Interruption.]—which I have always openly acknowledged—there are signs that the interim index is going down in certain respects, as the hon. and gallant Member will see from today's newspapers.

Does the right hon. Gentleman take comfort from the fact that this fall is due to the deliberate action of the Government?

I do not attribute everything to the Government any more than the right hon. Gentleman would attribute everything to himself when he was in office. I will say this, that the rise in the Interim Index of Retail Prices in the first eight months of this year was a good deal less than in the corresponding period of 1951.

But is it not a fact that the August index does not take account of the big rise in food prices in the first week of October, and is not that misleading?

No, I have no intention of misleading the House, nor the right hon. Gentleman. When the index is next published, it will naturally reflect the increase in food prices which took place in October.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that while there have been price increases in previous years. Britain in those years was always doing better than other countries, whereas this year we appear to be leading the world as far as price increases are concerned, which is a thing that never happened under the late Government?

I think that is an oversimplification of the situation. I think that Great Britain is doing pretty well in regard to her balance of payments, considering the burden we are bearing. In that respect, at any rate, Britain is leading the world.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what, taking 1945 as 20s., was the purchasing power of the £ in November, 1951, and at the latest convenient date.

The internal purchasing power of the £ was 14s. 3d. in November, 1951, and 13s. 6d. in September, 1952, based on the National Income White Paper price index for all consumers' goods and services for the period 1945–51, and the Ministry of Labour Interim Index of Retail Prices for the period January to September, 1952.

Is that what the right hon. Gentleman means by "repairing the hole in the £"?

I have nothing to add to the very full answers which my right hon. Friend gave to Questions Nos. 7 and 19.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revised estimate he had made, in view of the import cut announced on 29th July, of the figure of £100 million as the amount by which imports in 1952 are to be reduced as against imports in 1951.

In his speech on the 30th July my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade estimated that imports in 1952 would be reduced by some £400 million in comparison with imports in 1951. I see no reason to vary that estimate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the national income went to the richest tenth and to the poorest half of the nation in 1936, 1949 and 1951, respectively, both before and after taxation.

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

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately what proportion of the £596 million paid last year in interest and dividends went to Surtax payers and to stockholders not liable to Income Tax, respectively; and approximately how many people shared in the total amount.

It is estimated that about 40 per cent. of the dividends and interest paid by companies are received by Surtax payers and a further 10 per cent. by life assurance funds, charitable organisations and similar bodies. No information is available as to the proportion received by persons not liable to Income Tax or the total number of recipients.

Does the Chancellor mean by that that the net amount received by individuals will be considerably less than half the figure he gave last week and would represent about 4s. a week per wage earner if totally distributed to the wage earner?

I would hesitate to interfere with the calculations of my hon. Friend.

Is it not clear from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the greatest inequality still prevails if 40 per cent. of these dividends still accrue to the trifling minority of the population who pay Surtax?

Is it not also true that if it were distributed to wage earners it would not represent 4s. a week?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a further statement on the closing of some sections of the national galleries and museums; and whether the Organisation and Methods Division has yet been able to suggest any alteration in staffing which will allow for normal opening.

After considering reports by the Organisation and Methods Division, I have authorised increases of two in the staff at the Tate Gallery and of three in the Wallace Collection and normal opening will be resumed as soon as the staff have been recruited. Reports on the National Maritime Museum and the British Museum are under consideration. Interim reports, which are under consideration, have been submitted on the Public Record Office, and the inquiry is continuing. At the Natural History Museum, it is not practicable at present to use the Mammal Gallery for exhibition purposes on account of projected reconstruction work. At Ham House, full opening is prevented by repairs.

Does the answer of the Chancellor mean that he, at any rate, realises that the original cut of £30,000 was hardly merited? Will he, on behalf of the whole nation, bear in mind in future that small sums of money taken out of national expenditure may do grievous harm?

I should like to say this in return, that the original so-called cuts in the museums were done as part of the general reduction of the Civil Service. There was no intention to aim at the museums as such. I was not altogether happy at the spirit in which the cut was accepted, but I undertook to review it at the instance of the Financial Secretary, and I think the result has been that, within reason and with the aid of the Organisation and Methods Division, we have achieved a satisfactory settlement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial grant was given to the national galleries and museums of Great Britain in 1938 and in 1951; and in what numbers the public made use of the facilities available in those years.

In 1938–39 and 1951–52 the sums amounted to £676,000 and £1,400,000, respectively. Figures for services furnished for the museums out of the Votes of other Government Departments cannot be ascertained with sufficient precision to provide a strict comparison, but they are of the order of £500,000 in 1938–39 and £1 million in 1951–52. There were over 7 million visitors in 1938 and nearly 6 million in 1951.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an estimate of the increase in expenditure that would be required so as to allow the British Museum, the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery to remain open each day till 9 p.m.

Assuming this would be practicable at all, a rough estimate of the cost is £75,000 a year, perhaps more.

Has the Chancellor noted that we close these great national institutions at just about the time when workers leave their factories and workshops, which gives them very little opportunity of looking at our national treasures? Would he consider, as a trial experiment, if only for one or two years, opening these places until nine o'clock?

I must remind the House and the hon. Member that this must depend on the decision of the trustees concerned. It will involve a certain amount of extra difficulty over overtime and so forth, but it is a matter for the trustees. Perhaps the Question and the answer will result in having the matter aired.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated cost of exempting from Income Tax all incomes under £250 per annum.

About £27 million. This includes the cost of the relief which, in order to prevent anomalies, it would be necessary to give to incomes slightly over £250 per annum.

In view of Press reports at the time of the Budget about consideration being given to reduction of tax, might I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will look into the position of these lower income groups and see whether any further help can be given to them to meet the difficulties in which they find themselves today?

I have every sympathy with these income groups, and I did do something to help them in my Budget, but whether I can do more depends on future developments.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery and other nationally-owned galleries and museums to waive their copyright charges for reproductions of works of art by authors of scientific and artistic books and other works of scholarship.

They often do so, at their discretion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the fact that the currency allowance to British delegates to the annual Congress of the International Union of Marine Insurance, held at Knocke-Le-Zout, Belgium, between 1st September and 6th September, was inadequate, as a result of which the British representatives at this important conference were placed in a humiliating position vis-à-vis the representatives of all the other nations present; and if he will increase the allowance for future congresses.

I understand that delegates to this conference were allowed £7 a day, which is the normal maximum rate for business conferences of this kind in Europe. Higher rates were allowed to certain officially appointed members of representative bodies because of their official duties. I cannot promise that a larger daily allotment will be available on a future occasion, although the amounts of exchange allowed to business travellers are now under review.

Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to look into one or two individual cases where less than £7 a day was given? Will he accept my word for it that this is the most important conference in regard to marine insurance in the year and that the people who attend it are responsible people who would not waste the extra allowance?

I will certainly look into any case, and it is because of one or two considerations in relation to the different amounts of allowance that the whole matter is now under review. This is the time to send me information.

Is the Chancellor aware that £7 a day is more than he allowed to the delegates to the Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union?

It is as much as engineers get in a week.

It depends on the broadness of the definition with which one defines the word "business."

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will remove Purchase Tax from dry batteries used in wireless sets.

No, Sir. I fear I cannot now make any statement on this subject.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the injustice which is inflicted on people living in the countryside where there is no means of using mains electricity? They pay Purchase Tax on wireless sets the same as on the ordinary mains set, but every time a battery runs down they have to pay the additional Purchase Tax which people with an all-mains set do not have to pay.

I have been fully informed on that, but that does not alter the fact that on this question of taxation I cannot now make any statement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many thousands of old people living in almshouses have no electrical installation and have to buy batteries for their sets? Poor people who are living where there is still no electrical installation and old age pensioners are very hard hit by this.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many farthings have been minted since 31st March last.

Seven hundred and eighty thousand.

Is the Chancellor aware that this very substantial drop in the manufacture of farthings shows that he is not content to waste these coins because even the drapers have stopped demanding farthings in selling their particular wares?

Yes, Sir. I think this just about meets the situation, particularly in view of the decline in the export of farthings, which was causing me some anxiety.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the statistics recently published by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation showing that in the first half of 1952 the cost of living rose more in Britain than in any other Organisation for European Economic Co-operation country, including the United States of America and Canada; whether he accepts the validity of these figures; and what special steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to fight the rising cost of living.

I am aware of these figures. In spite of the rise in food prices due to the reduction of subsidies, the increase in the Interim Index of Retail Prices in the United Kingdom in the first eight months of this year (5½ per cent.) was less than in the corresponding period of 1951 (9½ per cent.).

The last of the increases in food prices associated with the Budget changes has now been announced, and as far as import prices are concerned I hope that the prospects are for stability.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the period of the late Government, when world prices were rising at a very fast rate indeed, the cost of living in this country rose less than in most other countries, but in the first six months of this year, with many world prices falling, the Government had succeeded in bringing about a situation in which the cost of living has risen more than in other countries?

I am aware that the cost of the living index has risen considerably less—4 per cent. less—in the first eight months of this year than in the first eight months of 1951. Further, the House must also be aware that one of the main reasons for the change was some changes that were deliberately introduced in the Budget, which have been compensated for, as the House well knows, by many forms of relief to many sections of the population. In the circumstances, and in view of the present level of the terms of trade, I have hopes of a prospect of stability, to which I referred in my original answer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if it had not been for the valuable action taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer there would have been no cost of living at all because there would have been no living?

Yes, Sir. The hon. Lady is quite correct. If we had allowed the value of the £ to be lowered, due to a decline in our balance of payments position and in our reserves, we should certainly have been faced with a devaluation, increased costs of our raw materials, danger of unemployment, danger of losing much of the food that we must get from abroad and a danger of starvation.

In view of the fact that food and raw material prices are 10 per cent. down compared with this time last year, ought not the Government to be able to give some indication of when a fall in the cost of living is to operate?

I do not think that any Chancellor of the Exchequer would be wise to forecast these matters, because he might raise false hopes in the minds of many people to whom these matters are questions of life and death. All I can say is what I said in my original answer with absolute sincerity, that we may have reached a more stable position and recent signs in the index, as taken this month, show that there are certain tendencies towards reduction.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent information is available with regard to the amount of revenue received by this country from overseas in respect of licences to manufacture various British-patented products; and whether he will consider publishing figures dividing such revenue according to the various trades concerned.

I regret that no separate record is kept of foreign currency earnings from this source.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, to the nearest £100 million per annum, is the rate at which the country is now spending money on defence.

The current year's Defence budget, in the broad terms asked for, is £1,500 million.

Does that mean that the Government are spending more or less this year than was spent last year?

The current year bears out the estimate, which I have already given in public, of a figure approximately the same as I have mentioned. I am not forecasting what next year's expenditure will be.

But have not representative spokesmen of the Government claimed that the Government intended to spend less on defence this year than was spent last year, and do not these figures indicate the reverse?

No, they indicate, as is, I hope, usual in the administration which I attempt to carry out, that what I forecast is proving to be correct.

If the answer was an estimate of what the rate of expenditure was to be, can the Chancellor say whether current experience shows that that is about the rate at which we are now spending?

As I have said on another occasion, the Exchequer returns indicate that in the first quarter of this year defence expenditure was somewhat up and that in the second quarter it was declining; and I anticipate that for the year it should work out broadly as I have stated.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange to publish in abbreviated form in HANSARD, or in other convenient form, the evidence submitted to the Ridley Committee on national policy for the use of fuel and power resources, by the Board of Inland Revenue, and referred to on page 236 of the Committee's Report, Command Paper No. 8647, in view of the publication of the evidence submitted by both the Federation of British Industries and the Trades Union Congress.

The evidence referred to was a memorandum dealing with a specific question raised by a member of the Ridley Committee and was of quite a different character from the evidence on fuel policy submitted by the Federation of British Industries and the Trades Union Congress. I do not think the memorandum is of sufficient general interest to call for publication.

In view of the fundamental importance of a fiscal reform in connection with these fuel efficiency matters, would my right hon. Friend consider placing the memorandum to which he has referred in the Library of the House before our debate next Wednesday in order that all hon. Members may be informed on the particular points made by the Board of Inland Revenue?

I will certainly look into that possibility.

Since the Ridley Committee estimated that industry might be able to save as much as 12 million tons of coal, which would make an immense difference to our balance of payments, and since their main proposal to that end was a financial inducement to industry, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it desirable that the evidence of the Board of Inland Revenue should be available to Parliament?

This was not general evidence by the Board of Inland Revenue but was in reply to a specific question by a member of the Committee, so that it really has not quite the importance which my hon. Friend imagines. Nevertheless, I will certainly see whether we can tear the mystery from this document.

May I press the Chancellor? Did not the Board of Inland Revenue give evidence on the financial inducement to which I have referred?

The Board of Inland Revenue gave certain evidence, but that is not referred to in this Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking in connection with fiscal and financial proposals made by the Ridley Committee on national policy for the use of fuel and power resources, Command Paper No. 8647.

I am examining these proposals together with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

In view of the imminence of the debate next Wednesday on this very important subject, and the fact that in past debates we have had only representatives of the Ministry of Fuel and Power on the Front Bench, would it be possible for a representative of the Treasury to listen particularly to debates which affect these financial and fiscal proposals?

The Treasury is both farseeing and well informed, and if I can take the opportunity, as a Member of the Treasury, to be even better informed about this matter, I will certainly pay attention to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Does the Chancellor's answer mean that he intends to give some encouragement in the industrial field to the saving of fuel?

This matter might have come up on the Finance Act had some proposal which was in order been moved. It is a matter of great interest to me, but there are difficulties which I cannot detail in answer to a Question. If the right hon. Gentleman would care to put down a Question or have a conversation with me, I will tell him some of the problems.

Does the Chancellor remember that just before the Recess we had a debate in this House on a Friday afternoon, when there was complete unanimity about the seriousness of this situation? Will the Chancellor give an undertaking that between now and next week's debate he will consult the responsible Ministers with a view to taking some concrete action?

I will certainly pay attention to the hon. Member's point of view. It is clear that by this way of saving we can help to ease the very serious fuel problem and eventually our exports, so obviously it is a matter of first importance.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the submitting of evidence by the Board of Inland Revenue to committees appointed by Her Majesty's Government; and why such evidence was submitted by the Board of Inland Revenue to the Ridley Committee and refused in the case of the Gowers Committee.

Written evidence was submitted to both Committees by the Board of Inland Revenue, who are always ready to supply information to Government committees about current tax law and practice. It is sometimes considered, as in the case of the Gowers Committee, that it is undesirable for the Board to give evidence, and particularly oral evidence, on major changes in taxation policy.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to grant to its industrial employees the 10 per cent. cost of living increase in wages and salaries accorded to the Civil Service.

I assume that the hon. Member refers to the recent grant to non-industrial civil servants of a pay increase broadly comparable with those already obtained up to the end of 1951 by workers generally in other occupations. It would not be appropriate to extend this pay addition to industrial employees whose wages are determined by reference to the approved rates for the individual trades concerned in outside industry and who have already received suitable increases on this basis.

Would not the Chancellor agree he has just told the House that during the last 12 months the £ has fallen by some 1s. 3d. in value; that requests for negotiations for increased wages have taken place many months ago, and that if he wants to maintain increased production at the pace he asked for he must do something about it?

Yes, Sir, but the Question related to industrial employees, whose case has been considered through the ordinary machinery and the ordinary channels relating to their individual trades; which is the answer to the Question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that to increase wages now does no good to the recipients or the country?

That is not true.

It simply means printing more pieces of paper which we cannot eat or wear.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he made at the recent meeting of the International Monetary Fund to obtain agreement to an advance in the price of monetary gold fixed at Bretton Woods to a figure more in keeping with the realities of today, in view of the fact that 75 per cent. of the gold of the world produced outside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is produced in the sterling area and that the present price affords an insufficient cushion on which to conduct world trade.

None, Sir; but speeches in favour of a higher monetary price for gold were made by the representatives of South Africa and Australia.

Yes, I know that, but does that mean that the Government have no views on this subject? Is it not ridiculous that gold should maintain the same dollar value when the cost of production has gone up proportionately with the production of other things?

The main producers of gold, so far as we are concerned, are the two countries concerned, South Africa and Australia. Their case on this matter was put very eloquently, and I have nothing to add at this stage on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

But will the Chancellor give his mind to the latter part of the Question? How does he expect to continue to carry on international trade on a dollar-gold basis unless he allows the cushion to become large enough to take up the shocks?

That, of course, is a matter which requires a great deal of discussion, and is a matter upon which the American Secretary to the Treasury has already stated his opinion.

I do not agree with it.

I dare say, but I have nothing to say on behalf of Her Majesty's Government at the present time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the fall in national production since the last Budget; and what action he proposes to take by way of incentive or other means to improve the level of productivity.

The figures for production during the summer months are always rather unreliable, but it is clear that they do indicate some decline below the levels forecast last March. Certain incentives have been given, but the broad general problem remains one for industry backed in every way possible by the Government and public opinion.

Yes, but is the Chancellor aware that the very small reliefs he gave to the workers in the Budget have been completely wiped out by the rapid rise in the cost of living? Is he aware that the easiest and speediest way of getting the workers to produce more is to carry out the Tory promise to reduce the cost of living, and when is he going to do something about that?

Except in the respects to which I have referred earlier, there are signs—as I have said several times this afternoon—that the cost of living index is showing signs of being actually reduced, which is a very satisfactory development and one which I see no reason to suppose may not continue.

As the Question relates not so much to the cost of living as to increased productivity, and in view of the declaration at the recent Conservative Party conference about the need for increased production, can the right hon. Gentleman say in a sentence or two what the Government really intend to do in a specific form to increase production?

The first thing the Government realise is that increased production depends upon those who guide industry, and particularly upon the efforts of the workers in industry who have, on the whole, such a fine record to their credit; and anything that can be done in those quarters will be backed by the Government. Every possible incentive will be borne in mind, and the right hon. Gentleman may be quite satisfied that it is a matter of first-class importance to the Government.

Do we understand from that answer, quite clearly and unequivocally, that the Government themselves will do nothing in the matter, except to wait and see what the workers do and what the employers do? Is that the position?

No. The right hon. Gentleman has a quality for over-simplifying subjects and then distorting their meaning. What I do mean is that Her Majesty's Government, as at present constituted, have no intention of trying to run industry, or the lives of the workers, or their work for them, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman and his friends would wish to do. What we do say is this, taking one example; had it not been for the promise of extra supplies of steel, which we shall be getting from the American Continent, it would not be possible to look for a future improvement in production due to that particular raw material.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the prospective shortage of some kinds of nuts, particularly Brazil nuts, during the forthcoming Christmas season; and whether, in view of the fact that Brazil under present circumstances is finding it extremely difficult to obtain sterling to pay for the substantial British exports received by her, he will reconsider the restriction imposed on the import of Brazil nuts and other Brazilian food produce into this country as a matter of urgency.

In order to right our balance of payments it has been necessary to impose restrictions upon the import of many commodities, including nuts. Supplies will necessarily be somewhat less this year than last. Within the total quotas for particular commodities, there is no limit on the amount which can be spent in individual countries, including Brazil. I consider it premature to relax any of these restrictions at present.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Brazil nuts are amongst the most nutritious foodstuffs one can get, and in the circumstances could not he make a special case of this matter?

Well, I will see what I can do, but I think there are other nutritive foods as well.

Is the Chancellor aware that it would be a boon to British shipping on the Amazon if this restriction were withdrawn? Is he not aware that a very fine new ship of the Booth Line, the "Hildebrand," could find only 600 tons of freight this month to return to this country and that the withdrawing of this restriction on Brazil nuts would go a long way to remedy their very difficult situation.

I have every desire to see the trade between this country and Latin America, and the shipping which provides and helps that trade, improved, and the hon. Member may rest assured that we shall do all we can.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the first coins bearing the head of Her Majesty the Queen will be issued.

The design of coinage comes within the Royal Prerogative. I understand that it is probable that the Royal Proclamation prescribing the designs of the new coinage may be issued before the end of this year, in which case specimens may be expected to be available before the Coronation.

Having regard to the Royal Prerogative, cannot the Government do everything possible to devise that these new products shall be available for certain, and not doubtfully?

In view of the first part of my answer to my hon. Friend, I cannot give any precise answer to that, other than to say that the importance of the matter is very much borne in mind.

Can my hon. Friend say whether it is the fact that Her Majesty will not be the Defender of the Faith until after the Coronation, and that therefore the coinage cannot properly be produced until after that date?

If that were a question for me, it would, none the less, not arise on this Question.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the case, he will authorise the payment of post-war credits of the late Miss Peggy Dowson, particulars of which have been supplied to him, to the widowed mother of Miss Dowson who is responsible for the care and maintenance of her late daughter's child.

Though I feel great sympathy with the people concerned, payment of post-war credit is not by law due in this case, and I have no power to authorise payment.

While thanking the Minister for his sympathy, may I ask him if, in view of the special circumstances attaching to this case, which I have outlined in a letter to him, he can agree to pay the credits to the mother of the girl who died?

As I have already explained to the hon. Member, though I fully share his sympathy with the circumstances of this distressing case, I have no authority whatsoever to authorise a payment not authorised by law.

But could not the Minister seek authority?

That is another question.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made in Kent in taking the gypsy survey.

I am informed that the survey has been completed, and that the county council intend to issue a report early next month.

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a report to be placed in the Library, and does he not realise by now that the worsening treatment of gypsies is, in some respects, even more cruel than under the segregation laws of Dr. Malan?

The hon. Gentleman asks me whether I have had a survey made. The county council have made it, and I think it is only reasonable to wait until their report is published.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the lives of these friends of mine will not in any way be interfered with, because they are such fine examples of free enterprise?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the value of the work authorised by licence for the new Woolworth building on the Deansgate—Mary's Gate, Manchester, site.

£130,000, in 1952.

Is the Minister aware that there is already a large Woolworth store within a few hundred yards of this one? Is he further aware that this very unnecessary building is gobbling up steel in Lancashire at a time when new industrial buildings in Lancashire are being held up through the shortage of steel; and is he further aware that members of the local authorities in the Manchester and Salford areas are complaining about the delay in the building of flats because of the shortage of steel? Will he not see that this building is stopped at once?

This is a rather different angle of approach than that which is ordinarily found from hon. Members representing blitzed cities. This is a case where, out of the allocation given to the corporation, they have decided to spend it on shops or on the restoration of property which they think will be beneficial to their rateable value. I am glad to have that admirable statement of the other side of the problem, which has to be borne in mind.

Answer the question.

Will not the Minister give an assurance that he will have the matter looked into? Is he aware that, in this connection, I recently received from his Department the most ridiculous letter that surely came out of a Government Department, showing that his officials obviously had not read the letter which the hon. Member had sent them? Will not the Minister have the matter investigated?

I have a lively recollection of the correspondence we have had, and whether the hon. Gentleman's description of my reply or the original letter is right or not is a matter that we must leave for others to judge. All I can say is that, on this matter, certain allocations are made to the corporation to repair the bomb damage, and this is a very unusual case of objection being taken to my Department having made too big an allocation.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the urgent need for the development of sewerage in the rural district of Newcastle-under-Lyme; and what steps he is taking to assist the local authority to undertake such development.

Schemes put forward by the council are under consideration.

Does the answer mean that the Minister has not rejected the scheme put forward by the local authorities?

In the first case, the local investigation into the scheme was made only on the 14th of this month, and I am awaiting a report. Of course, I shall not decide until reports are received from the experts I have consulted.

Is the Minister aware that raw sewage comes up from the drains into the dwelling-houses in Winter-ton in my constituency, and that £2,000 worth of work would be sufficient to put it right, and will be not give the greatest possible consideration to that proposal?

Yes, Sir; I am very grateful for the information given by the hon. and learned Gentleman and should be glad to meet him at a convenient opportunity.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when a decision is to be taken and promulgated in regard to the proportions in which the cost is to be borne for the Harlow Trunk Sewer, the Stevenage Trunk Sewer, and the Rye Meads Sewage Disposal Works.

I am afraid that I cannot say how long it will take to settle this. Many interests are involved. Meanwhile, the actual work is going ahead.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this important matter has been hanging about for a long time both with this Government and the last, and will he bear in mind the great embarrassment caused to local authorities in Hertfordshire owing to the uncertainty in regard to the apportionment of the costs of these projects?

It is, of course, an important matter, but I think it is quite clear that it is a very complicated one to settle: perhaps, what is more important, the work has not been delayed.

Yes, but will my right hon. Friend have regard to the general context of this matter, which is a feeling in Hertfordshire that the arrival of the new towns is going to involve great financial liabilities for the existing population?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the national sympathy for the bombed towns of Britain, he will increase the aid given to these towns in their work of reconstruction.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement as to the number of licences to be issued for reconstruction work in the bombed areas of Southampton during the remaining months of this year and the first six months of next year.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he intends to make a statement on the amount of reconstruction work to be permitted in bombed cities under the capital investment programme.

I regret that I cannot yet add anything to the statement which I made in reply to Questions on this subject a week ago.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only two licences for reconstruction have been granted in Southampton this year as against five licences last year, that there are 23 traders in Southampton who have by-law and planning authorisation to proceed with the reconstruction of their blitzed premises, but cannot get a licence, and that not only members of the Labour Party, but members of the Conservative Party in Southampton are disgusted with his lack of action in this matter?

I hope to make a statement in due course, but, meanwhile, think I ought to put the hon. Gentleman in touch with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), who has been very angry with me today because I have given licences.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole country was very pleased with the initiative he showed in the disaster at Lynmouth this summer, that the whole country responded to the appeal made on behalf of this post-war calamity, and will not he show some of the same initiative in appealing to the Cabinet, and, through the Government, give a lead to the country in further considering the very just claims of the blitzed cities which had the honour of standing in the front line during the last war?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind tribute, but he is aware of the opposite view so strongly held in other parts of his own party. I would point out that in this year. 1952, £1 million more work will be completed in the blitzed cities than in 1951.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the dissatisfaction in north-west Kent at the closing of the Dartford Rent Tribunal office which operated in the thickly populated part of Kent; and why he has centralised this work at Maidstone.

I have received some representations on the matter. The work has been centralised at Maidstone on grounds of economy and convenience.

How can the right hon. Gentleman plead the ground of economy when this office, in the first six months of this year, granted 616 interviews, and when it is considered that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works paid £525 for an Adam mantelpiece and only £500 for the office? Is that economy?

I do not see the connection between the two matters.

Will not the Minister give serious consideration to stopping this kind of action in order that the Rent Acts may not be destroyed? Is he aware that, in West Cheshire already, instead of 41 applications being heard, as was the case three months ago, now only 13 people have been able to take advantage of that particular tribunal, since the number of tribunals has been reduced? Is it not really ridiculous, on the grounds of economy, at a time when we are supposed to be putting into effect measures for the protection of tenants?

The reason why the economy was made was because the number of applications at all of these tribunals had been steadily falling in recent years. On the other point, on which the hon. Gentleman came to see me the other day, I gathered that the question was not so much against concentration but as to where the location of the single office should be.

Will not the Minister give the House accurate information? Is it not the case that he himself had so little time to give to the discussion that he does not know what were the points to be raised?

When the Minister talks about convenience, does he mean the convenience of this Department or that of the people in north-west Kent?

The general convenience of the public, having regard to the amount of business to be done.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why, in deciding to abolish the Dartford Rent Tribunal, it was considered unnecessary to consult with or inform the local authorities concerned of the proposal.

Because the cost of rent tribunals is met wholly from Exchequer funds and the responsibility for ensuring economy in administration is entirely mine. Local authorities were informed of the proposed amalgamation on 4th September last.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, before the Labour Government introduced them, they did have discussions with the local authority, but, now that the local authorities are being asked to provide experts in every office, as well as a room for the tribunals, can he wonder that they are annoyed at the high handed action in not discussing it with them before?

In accordance with the statute, the local authorities were consulted by my predecessor as to where these tribunals should be situated, but they were not consulted by either of my predecessors as to what should be the districts that were to be included in any particular area. I therefore followed precedent in this matter.

Is the Minister aware that the local authorities were asked to co-operate, and that, in the case of one of them—the Erith local authority—it has provided for this tribunal over a period of years the free use of the council chamber and free tea for the members when the tribunal has been sitting, and that, generally speaking, they have attempted to co-operate in the most friendly way?

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, having received such co-operation—[Interruption.] I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite care nothing about rents or rent tribunals, but they might at least be silent. Does not the Minister think that it is reasonable that they should have been consulted before this tribunal was transferred to a place 40 miles away?

I do not think there is any resentment in this matter. My relations with the local authorities, in this as in other matters, have been very happy, and I have done everything I can to help them in the normal way. I do not regard this as anything but a rather trumped-up agitation to suit a few hon. Members opposite.

Is not the Minister's answer to this question inconsistent with the answer which he gave to the previous Question on the Order Paper? Surely, if what he has been considering was the public convenience, the local authorities ought to have been the first people to consult, whereas, if he is concerned only with economy, then it would be quite understandable why he should consult only the Treasury?

One is a matter of economy and the other one of convenience. When there are a large number of local authorities concerned, I have usually found that each thinks theirs is the one where the tribunal should be held.

I beg to give notice that, owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

I rather expected that.

Why not tell the truth?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what review he has made, or proposes to make, of the procedure of rent tribunals.

None, Sir. But I am open to suggestions.