asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage the adoption of co-partnership schemes by industrial firms.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Treasury will take to encourage firms seeking to introduce co-partnership, profit-sharing and similar schemes.

The Government's policy on these matters was stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of. Labour in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) on 15th July last.

If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to encourage the introduction of profit-sharing schemes by fiscal policy, can he give an assurance that firms willing and anxious to introduce either profit-sharing or ownership-sharing involving the transfer of shares to employees will not be deterred from doing so by the policy pursued by the Inland Revenue or by decisions of the Capital Issues Committee?

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has got the situation quite clear. First, we encourage and like to see firms engaging in practices of this sort. Secondly, there is surprisingly little scope for the Government to encourage profit-sharing and co-partnership by way of fiscal relief, for this reason, which I think the House would like to know: the employer's contribution counts as a business expense, so there is no taxation to relieve. It is important to get that clear in order to see that the Inland Revenue is not being quite so unfriendly as the hon. Member may have imagined.

Am I right in supposing that my right hon. Friend at present has no power to collect information about schemes of this kind? In view of the recent promising and encouraging extension of profit-sharing and co-partnership, and even of pension schemes, would it not be desirable for my right hon. Friend to seek these powers at the first convenient opportunity? Would they not be of interest and value to him?

I am not quite clear what sort of powers my hon. Friend has in mind. Certainly the more interest I can take in this subject, and the more information I can acquire, the happier I shall be.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the valuation office of the Inland Revenue Department has now completed the revaluation of dwellinghouses under the provisions of Section 2 of the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953; or what proportion of the work remains to be done.

A small proportion remains to be done.

Is it not a matter of concern to the right hon. Gentleman that so much of this work has been done and yet the new valuation lists are not due to appear until 1st April, 1956? What becomes of all this talk of economies in the staff of the Civil Service if the valuation office is standing still, waiting for the day on which the new valuation lists are to appear?

Again, it is not quite so simple as the hon. Member puts it. As my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Defence said on 11th March, these was no time for the legislation in that particular Session. As regards the administration, although a small proportion remains to be done, there are still some very difficult aspects to finish. As we want this job done thoroughly, I am not in quite the state of alarm which the hon. Member imagines.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what British participation has so far been arranged either by investment or by the placing of contracts or supply of materials in the St. Lawrence Seaway project.

Approval has been given for a number of British contractors and civil engineering firms to establish subsidiaries in Canada, and they will, no doubt, tender for contracts when the opportunity arises. Up to the present time, I believe, only one contract has been offered, and this was awarded to a Canadian firm. With regard to investment, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on 9th March this year.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether British firms are competing on equal terms with Canadian or American firms for contracts of this sort, or are they hindered by regulations of the Canadian or American Governments, or by restrictions which our own Government place upon them?

The situation is rather complicated in regard to the actual rules in relation to investment, but I can give the hon. Member a separate answer, if he so desires.

Is not the best assurance the continuance of the present policy which, over the last three years, has resulted in Canadian investments by the United Kingdom multiplying themselves four or five times?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give guidance to trading companies as to the amount of profits they should distribute to ensure that action will not be taken against them under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1952.

The question whether a company has made a reasonable distribution of income must depend on the facts of the particular case and is not one on which I could give general guidance. I am, however, sending my hon. Friend a copy of a statement made by the late Sir Stafford Cripps on 22nd July, 1948, which sets out the present practice in relation to one-man trading companies whose dividends for periods ended before June, 1947, were accepted by the Special Commissioners as reasonable. If after my hon. Friend has read the statement, he has any other point to raise, perhaps he would write to me.

I have already seen the statement, and I can save my right hon. Friend the trouble of sending me a copy. Does not the fact that that statement was made as long ago as 1948, and that developments have since taken place, including the policy of dividend limitation, make it necessary now for some fresh guidance to be given, especially to what are called one-man trading companies? Will my right hon. Friend consider making such a statement?

I am ready to consider any new aspect of this matter arising under Section 245. If my hon. Friend or his colleagues have any further information to send me, they had better send it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the new investment allowances have given sufficient assistance to the shipping and shipbuilding industries to maintain the British Merchant Marine in the face of present taxation.

The question whether adequate finance will be available in the future for the maintenance of the British Merchant Marine must depend on many factors, but the investment allowances should be of substantial help.

Is it not the case that, in spite of investment allowances, the British Merchant Marine is getting older, and also forms a smaller proportion of world tonnage? Does the Chancellor regard this as an inevitable tendency, or is it due to the failure of shipping companies to accumulate sufficient reserves or to invest?

As we know, the shipping industry has had quite a difficult time, but since last April the British Merchant Marine has increased by 330,000 gross tons. While that increase cannot be attributed to one cause, it is a sign that things are developing, although there are difficulties in the long-term future.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that so long as taxation upon British shipping companies remains at a higher level than that upon foreign competitors, those competitors are bound to establish a lead?

That is why the shipping industry so much welcomes provision for relief from taxation, especially that contained in my last Budget.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in the amount of British tonnage in the past year, to which he has referred, is largely due to increasing tanker tonnage, and not to tramp and medium cargo-ship tonnage? Will he give consideration to the whole position of the British Merchant Marine, in view of what may happen in the next few years?

The answer to the latter part of that supplementary question is, "Yes, Sir," and the answer to the first part is that I believe it largely reflects the increase in tanker tonnage.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to exempt from Inland Revenue claims the extra 1s. a day granted to sailors serving on Her Majesty's submarines.

No, Sir.

Does the Chancellor not realise that there is a great deal of feeling, in view of the fact that this 1s. a day is granted to these men in recognition of the extra discomforts and hardships of the submarine service? When they have been at sea for 21 days they are entitled to 21s., but they receive 15s. Does not he think that that is rather mean?

No, Sir.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that this type of allowance is made not only to men in the submarine service but also to those in the Fleet air arm? The point is not that it should be exempt from Income Tax, but that it should be at a different level, commensurate with the civilian equivalent, and of a higher order.

That is precisely one of the difficulties in this case. An allowance on account of the dangerous nature of a person's job is not confined to the submarine service. With regard to the necessity for paying adequate hard-lying money—as it is called in this case—in respect of submarine crews, I should not like to interfere with the discretion of the Admiralty.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to announce his plans for the development of higher technological education in Wales.

I cannot yet add to the statement which I made to the House on 13th July.

Is the Chancellor aware that he said nothing then about his plans? Is he further aware that his studied disregard for Welsh interests is being noted, and that Welsh authorities are getting together with a view to submitting regional plans in regard to technological education in the Principality? Will he at least promise not to hinder them in their work?

The taxpayer may be surprised when he sees the magnitude of the total scheme for the development of technological education which we have in mind. I am sorry that the hon. Member and his friends from Wales should have to wait, but I am making a further statement which will give a broader picture than that which I gave before. In this matter I have to work in conjunction with the University Grants Committee.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of his financial administration Wales—nd especially its industrial areas—s more prosperous than it has ever been? Nevertheless, will he bear in mind that there is some substance in what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) says about the need for technological education in Wales, and will he do his best to expedite that matter?

Yes, Sir. It is precisely because of the increased buoyancy that we need further technological development.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Chancellor's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation providing for the repayment of post-war credits within a month of application to those who produce medical certificates of serious illness and who are unable to return to work.

I will consider this and other matters affecting post-war credits at the appropriate time, but I cannot give any undertaking.

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the only difficulty in dealing with this matter is that of drawing a line and defining hardship, does not the proposal contained in this Question indicate a method by which the problem could be dealt with satisfactorily? Will the Chancellor look at it again and, if there is a doubtful case, always give the recipient the benefit of the doubt?

I said that I would consider this and other matters at the appropriate time, and that I will do.

In view of the concession made by the Chancellor this year to a small section of the community—ho very much appreciated it—ill the right hon. Gentleman consider the whole question of taxation and try to give more sections of the community some concession in regard to post-war credits?

The hon. Member's question will have the same consideration as the original Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he now has any new proposals to make regarding sections of the community living on fixed incomes; and in particular on the position of retired Service officers.

I have the interests of these sections of the community at heart, but I have no special statement to make in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Can my right hon. Friend say how much it would cost to equalise the pre-1950 pensions with the present rates? Does not he think that, in fairness to a body of men who risked life and limb for the State, this equalisation should be carried out as early as possible?

I have not got the figures, but I will find them for my hon. and gallant Friend. Otherwise, for the statement of Government policy in this matter, he had better refer to Command Paper 9092. I would draw his attention particularly to paragraphs 36 and 44, which set out the Government's attitude in this matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that between the wars retired officers had their pensions reduced when the cost of living went down? Their case today is that they have never had them raised adequately to meet the rise in the cost of living.

There are many complexities in this subject. That is why it is set out in the very comprehensive White Paper. I am aware of the adjustments that have taken place.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that at Margate last year the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, speaking on behalf of the Government, said that attention would be given to the small income groups? Will he bear in mind that I am still waiting for the implementation of the pledge given on that occasion, and that I do not want to have to wait much longer.

I will study my hon. Friend's interpretation of the statement made by my right hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the recent decisions of the National Coal Board to buy German colliery equipment costing more than £00,000, despite British manufacturers having tendered competitive prices and approximately equal deliveries, and to buy heavy opencast mining machinery in the United States of America notwithstanding Messrs. Ran-some and Rapier, of Ipswich, having offered equivalent British machinery on competitive terms, and also the proposal of the British Overseas Airways Corporation to purchase for dollars, United States DC-7D airliners for trans-Atlantic routes, in preference to Bristol Britannia aircraft, what steps he is taking to assure, by exchange control means or otherwise, that the nationalised industries pursue a policy calculated to maintain British industrial prestige and interests upon international markets by buying British.

The Government's policy is that the nationalised industries should be guided by normal commercial considerations in their purchasing policy, subject only to such restrictions as are necessary to protect the balance of payments.

Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that the foreigner believes that the policy of British nationalised industries is inspired and endorsed by Her Majesty's Government, and that the practice which is developing, of nationalised industries purchasing large quantities of expensive engineering equipment—and now aircraft—oversea, is undermining British industrial prestige oversea, affecting our export trade, and having a very adverse effect upon our prospects? Cannot my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—without interfering with the autonomy——

On a point of order. In view of the desirability of short supplementary questions, would it not be desirable for Questions to be short also? This Question takes in four matters.

I am always against prolixity.

Cannot my right hon. Friend, without interfering with the autonomy enjoyed by the nationalised industries, influence their policy to buy British?

The answer to my hon. Friend is that he is exaggerating the extent of these purchases. Naturally, the preference should be given, if possible, to British goods, but there is one case here of some machinery for a pithead at Kinneil in West Lothian, and another case of DC-7D aircraft for B.O.A.C. On that matter I would refer him to the debate of 15th November, from which he will see that the matter is not quite as he has put it. There is the third matter, depending on the relative delivery dates of the British firms and the foreign firms. I cannot interfere when it is a question of an open general licence, unless it is a matter affecting the balance of payments.

I suppose it is hardly necessary for me to declare my interest in this Question, as it is stated in the Question, but may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in that case the fault did not lie with the National Coal Board but in the appalling dilatoriness of the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Minister of Agriculture in coming to a decision as to which ground should be made available for opencast working? Is he aware that that is what we want to see hurried up?

As that is a matter relating to the activities and responsibilities of two of my colleagues, I should like to investigate it before replying further to the right hon. Gentleman.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in refusing to bully the nationalised industries into paying more than they need, and in encouraging them to serve the consumers to the best advantage, he has the support of this side of the House?

Yes, but I would point out that while I have stated Government policy, which, I think, should remain as it is, there is undoubtedly anxiety on these matters. For example, they were raised recently at a meeting of the National Advisory Productivity Council for Industry. Therefore we have to investigate them to see that there is absolute fairness, and that in turn makes our rule all the more fair.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the periodic disasters which through the vagaries of the weather are causing distress and loss to country and town dwellers alike; and whether he is now prepared to consider an insurance scheme to provide for immediate relief and ultimate compensation for victims of such calamities and not leave them to rely on the uncertain and unequal responses to public appeal; or if he will consider accepting Government responsibility.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, but I am satisfied that a Government insurance scheme would not be appropriate. The attitude of the House to the grave disasters which have from time to time afflicted the country is well known, but it would be a different matter to recognise in advance that a responsibility would rest on Her Majesty's Government whatever the scale or nature of the troubles might be.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that circumstances have changed, and that these days he himself collects about two-thirds of the profits of industry, so that many of the sources from which charity came are not so full as they used to be? If the Chancellor is going to collect large proportions of the profits of industry, should he not be prepared to accept some of the responsibilities that used to be accepted by people who gave money to charity? Is he not aware that damage to people's houses by some of these floods is just as serious as was war damage, and that the tragedy is just as serious for the people concerned, although it does not always arouse equal public sympathy?

In the end the State comes along and does its duty. The difficulty of carrying out the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that we have to see so far ahead and over so very wide a realm, some of which is that of private insurance, whereas war damage lay in the realm of what I might call national insurance. That is why I cannot adopt the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, though I see its value.

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider combination of Government action with public spiritedness by putting a ½d. extra on postage stamps? Would he consider something of that kind?

Oh.

That is a very valuable suggestion, which I will discuss with the Postmaster-General.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of all social services for the year ended October, 1951, and October, 1954, respectively.

Comprehensive figures of social service expenditure are available only for financial years, and the latest are those given in the Monthly Digest of Statistics for May, 1954. These show consolidated current expenditure (net) by all public authorities in Great Britain as £1,471 million in 1949–50 and £1,865 million in 1952–53; corresponding figures for capital expenditure including housing, were £327 million in 1949–50 and £463 million in 1952–53.

Does not the increase from £1,471 million to £1,865 million distributed to individuals more than compensate for the loss of the purchasing power of the pound? Is there not more real value in the social services?

I think that the taxpayer is apt to underestimate the greater value of the social services to him or her personally in assessing how well off he or she is.

Do the figures the Chancellor has given include food subsidies? It they are excluded, does not that make the picture rather different?

I should not like to give a snap answer to that question, but I will inform the right hon. Gentleman whether they do or not.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made to date by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in denationalising the steel industry; and what part of the total British iron and steel industry, expressed both as a percentage of total capacity, and in capacity tons per annum, remains still to be denationalised at the latest convenient date.

With the sale of the ordinary shares of Dorman Long and Company, 16 undertakings and their 146 subsidiaries will have ceased to be publicly-owned or controlled. In the aggregate these companies account for about one-half of the activities carried on by the companies which were nationalised. The products of all these companies are not, of course, identical, and it would be misleading to try to express this statement in terms of output of a single type.

Is not this very satisfactory progress, and are the results which my right hon. Friend has just announced not an earnest of the confidence of the British electorate in the future prospects of the Government?

The answer, in general, is yes.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say how much more is now to be paid in dividends and interest to the new shareholders, as compared with what was paid under nationalisation?

I have not those figures available.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of granting the cheap tobacco concession to all people living on superannuation.

I have no figures on which to form such an estimate.

Is the Chancellor aware that there is real discontent because people on small pensions are not allowed the little concession of cheaper tobacco? Will he consider this matter to see if he can help in these cases?

The hon. Member asked me a Question about figures. I would rather not give him an answer on policy, except to say that this concession, as my predecessors, even those on the other other side of the House, know, is by no means a small concession. It is a very considerable concession, and one which is very difficult to administer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to measure the effects of the investment allowances provided in the Finance Act, 1954, upon the rate of industrial investment; how far the increase in industrial investment, since the last Budget, is commensurate with the increases in savings of all kinds; and whether he will now make a statement upon the savings and investment position that has developed since the spring of 1954.

On the first and second parts of the Question, I have nothing at present to add to the reply which I gave last week to the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) in relation to current rates of investment in plant and machinery in industry. On the third part of the Question, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the next annual national income White Paper and economic survey.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis the increases in pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Acts were calculated.

On the basis of relieving real hardship caused to those with small total incomes by severe falls in the value of money.

Does this basis have the sort of relationship that the assessment of the purchasing power of money has in relation to old-age pensions and pensions drawn under the National Insurance Act? Is there no better basis than a generalisation, which does not seem helpful?

I think it was found helpful on the last occasion when increases were introduced.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the Pensions (Increase) Acts now in operation have restored to the 1946 value the purchasing power of the pensions affected.

I am afraid I cannot add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Lady on 16th November.

Which made no sense at all, if my right hon. Friend will permit me to say so. Is he aware that in the opinion of a great many people treatment of the small income groups is far too "hitty and missy"? Does he not think that the Government should pay more attention to this matter? Will he bear in mind that I am hoping for some action to be taken when the Budget is introduced next year?

I will have a little exchange of information with my hon. Friend about the very sane and erudite answer which I gave her in the first instance, and then we shall be able to see whether hope springs eternal.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes were made in the annual increments of lecturers and assistant lecturers under the new scale of academic salaries recently announced.

The additional funds which I shall ask Parliament to vote will provide for certain increases in basic salaries but not for any change in the rate of annual increments received by assistant lecturers and lecturers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the main disappointment with the scales which he announced last week lies in this continued differentiation between pre-clinical and non-medical staff, not only in the increments but also in the basic salaries? Is the aware that some pre-clinical professors refuse to accept the additional amount to which they are entitled because they believe this differentiation to be unfair? In those circumstances, does he think that the differentiation can still be justified?

I am aware of anxieties, just as I was before these scales were brought out. In the circumstances I think they are about as fair as we can get. At any rate, I have accepted them and I propose to ask Parliament to vote the money to carry them through.

Can the Chancellor tell us how these proposed salaries for lecturers in science compare with payments offered by industry in similar circumstances? Is there not a danger of the whole source of scientific personnel in this country drying up if sufficient payment is not made in schools and universities to scientific teachers?

These improvements have been introduced in the university scales, and I hope that they will slightly improve the position. Both in the case of schools, where the problem is also acute, and in the case of universities, there is competition from industry, which means that the situation concerning science teachers at both schools and universities is very difficult.

Is not the solution to enable more children who are capable of taking this type of course to come up through the ranks and fill these posts, instead of drifting into occupations where their talents are not fully used?

I think there is something to be said for that, and I will certainly bring it to the attention of the Minister of Education.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to make a statement on the future of the Capital Issues Committee.

I have nothing to add to the reply given on 4th November to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

In view of the changed pattern and needs of the country, is my right hon. Friend aware that it is essential to make a change in this Capital Issues Committee? It has been under discussion and consideration for a long time. When does he hope to make the change which is so necessary and has been so long awaited?

I cannot at present give any date when I can make any statement.

Can the Chancellor tell us whether the Capital Issues Committee has in practice been rejecting any applications in recent months?

As the Economic Secretary pointed out in the previous exchange, the number of rejections is small, but there are rejections and I think there is a use for the Committee. As I have said, however, the matter is continually under review. I cannot make a further statement at present.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in negotiations with the Argentine Government to permit sums earned by British interests to be remitted to this country.

Discussions are in progress and I regret that I cannot yet make a statement.

What is the total sum now due by way of these remittances from Argentina to this country? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that in the negotiations now going on he will press to see that at long last the British investor in the Argentine gets a square deal?

The sum, I think, is about £7 million. We certainly want a square deal to result from these negotiations.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what consideration he has given to the proposal for a new appellate court or tribunal between the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the High Court for the purpose of hearing death duty value appeals from the commissioners' decision; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has this matter under consideration, but he is not at present in a position to make a statement.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that during these considerations he does not allow objections by the legal profession to cloud his own clear view of the matter?

I shall allow nobody to cloud my own clear view, but I would remind my hon. Friend that if it were to be decided to take any action of this kind it would have to await legislation in the Finance Bill.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses are still under requisition; and if he will again press local authorities to give them up without further delay.

About 64,000 houses and blocks of flats are still being held under requisition in England and Wales; and that is far too many. I am actively examining ways to speed up the release of these properties. I am also considering a procedure to relieve cases of hardship among owners, who wish to be allowed to live in their own homes. I have invited the representatives of local authorities to meet me later this week to discuss this whole problem.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for what I think is the first satisfactory answer given in this connection since the war, may I ask him to expedite the matter, because it is one thing to take a man's house away in wartime and quite another to deprive him of its use, or the fruits of its use, for 10 years afterwards?

Will the Minister also take good care to see that there is no undue hardship to those who have been living in these premises, and that they are not merely pushed out without having any home to which they can go?

I recognise that this problem cannot be solved overnight, especially in difficult areas, such as London, where the problem is particularly acute. At the same time, I feel that we must not allow requisitioning under war-time emergency powers to become a regular and normal element in our housing system.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many properties remain under requisition by local authorities in Wales, in the county of Glamorgan and in the borough of Barry, respectively.

The numbers are 19,162 and 1, respectively.

Does my hon. Friend anticipate that these properties will remain long in requisition?

My hon. Friend will have heard the statement made earlier this afternoon by my right hon. Friend and will, I hope, be able to interpret it in a favourable sense.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will arrange for the Housing Return to include in future a statement of the number of certificates of disrepair given under the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954.

No, Sir. I would hesitate to enlarge the scope of the Housing Return, which is already a fairly voluminous document.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be very easy to get these figures from the local authorities, and that they would help to show whether the tenants were receiving benefit or not from the Housing Repairs and Rents Act?

I think that there are other Questions on the Order Paper on that matter.

Is it not very desirable that this information should be available so that we can see whether the Act is working as it was intended to work, and cannot the Minister call for this information at regular intervals?

The first returns have not been received on this subject, and when I see them, I will consider in what form they could most conveniently be made available.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in view of the housing shortage in central London and the expanding office building programme, he will consider taking steps to encourage, by grant or otherwise, the conversion and return to residential use of houses in the Metropolitan boroughs which are now occupied by office users.

Under the Housing Acts, grants are available to local authorities and property-owners to assist them in converting suitable buildings into flats.

Is the Minister aware that there seems to be some lack of understanding among owners of houses which are now rated as offices as to their eligibility for improvement grants, and will he try and make their position a little clearer?

The hon. Lady will realise that I have no powers to compel people to change the use to which they put their buildings.

As the right hon. Gentleman is asked to encourage these local authorities, may I ask if he is aware that the conversion of some of these office properties in the centre of London would make a real contribution towards solving the housing problem, which there is no chance whatever of solving at the present moment?

So far as encouraging the local authorities is concerned, I would say that they have been encouraged in every possible way by circulars and other means to make use of these grants which are available, but local authorities do not possess large blocks of offices which they can convert into houses.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) whether, in view of the housing shortage in the Hebburn Urban District Council area, he will reconsider his decision to limit to 120 the number of houses to be erected in 1955 by the local authority;

(2) if he is aware of the concern of local authorities with direct labour schemes that the reduced housing programmes which he has announced for local authorities for 1955 will lead to reducing and breaking up the labour force which has served them and their respective communities well; and whether he will give such authorities an assurance that their allocation of houses will be at least sufficient to allow full employment to be maintained for the men concerned.

The principal regional officer of my Department discussed this matter with the representatives of the Hebburn Urban Distrct Council last week and I am awaiting his report. Similar difficulties which may arise in other areas will be examined in the same way with the local authorities concerned.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, provided the local authorities can make out their claims that they need higher allocations than were originally allowed them, they will be able to proceed? Can he give a further assurance that those local authorities which, after much effort, have built up a good direct labour scheme will not have to abandon their scheme because of the cut-down in the programme which the right hon. Gentleman recently announced?

I have not announced any cut-down in any programme, and I can assure the hon. Member that the needs of all localities will be sympathetically considered.

The Minister says that there has not been any cut-down, but is he not aware that it was stated that next year houses to rent, built by local authorities, would be limited to 150,000 and that the difference between 150,000 and the normal 200,000—[Interruption.]—200,000 to rent—will result in fewer houses to rent being built? Is he not aware that if it is to be left to private enterprise the housing problem will never be solved because private enterprise has not built 1 per cent. of the houses in that area since the war?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to send me a copy of any such statement.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in view of the widespread public interest, if he will make a statement on the initial effect of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act in connection with the aim to check decay of older houses.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the operation to date of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act in connection with the improvement of the state of controlled dwellinghouses.

Yes, Sir, but not immediately.

Since we have twice heard references to "shortly," will the right hon. Gentleman say how soon he expects to be able to make a statement, because some very authoritative statements are being made that the object of the Act is failing and that the older houses are not being put into decent repair?

The Act has been in operation only a few months. It is, obviously, much too soon to judge its effects. If the hon. Member would care to put down a Question in, say, six months' time, I will consider what information can be given to him.

Did the Minister read the statement recently in the "News Chronicle" that, in practice, the Act is. becoming a dead letter, because landlords are afraid to send in notices under the Act in case tenants should apply for and get certificates of disrepair? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the coming Session, introduce legislation to place all rented houses under municipal ownership, so that the repairs will be done?

Do not all these suggestions disprove the original allegations that the Act was a "landlords' ramp"?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce regulations to provide that, in the construction of new buildings and, where possible, in existing buildings, provision shall be made for the use by window cleaners of-appropriate safety equipment.

I am afraid I have no power to make such regulations.

Is the Minister aware of recent court and Court of Appeal decisions on the question of window cleaning and accidents arising therefrom? I know that this matter has received the attention of the Minister of Labour. In view of the court decisions, will the right hon. Gentleman have a talk with the Minister of Labour to see whether there is some way of meeting this suggestion, so that accidents may be prevented?

I have great respect for people who can stand on narrow ledges high up on buildings without getting vertigo, and I should like to do anything I can to help them, but I have no powers to make the regulations which the hon. Member proposes.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proportion of houses and flats, for which tenders were approved in the last quarter for which figures are available, were of one, two, three, four or more than four-bedroom types, respectively; and how these proportions compare with the same quarters of 1952 and 1953.

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

Can the hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that he will do nothing to force local authorities, against their will, to build too many of

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the Departmental inquiry into the problem of overcrowded families who for various reasons have not or cannot be placed on a local authority housing list will issue its report and recommendations.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him last week.

Does the Minister appreciate that that reply was most inadequate, and that I am asking here for something more specific? Can he not say, for instance, when the inquiry will take place, and when the report will be issued? Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that meanwhile quite a number of people are suffering acutely and that they have no hope at all because they are in a no-man's land? Surely, something should be done more quickly to give them some hope.

Yes, Sir, I can give that assurance. I think that when the hon. Member examines the figures he will find his suggestion satisfactorily dealt with.

The completion of the report does not rest with me. The sooner I receive it, the better I shall be pleased.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware of the resentment felt by elected members of the Audenshaw Urban District Council regarding his decision to allow appeals relating to planning application No. 19/3/A24, advertisement sign on land adjoining 214, Guide Lane, and planning application No. 19/3/A26, illuminated sign at Shepley Industrial Estate; and whether he will reverse his decision.

No, Sir.

In thanking the Minister for that ridiculously inadequate reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the local authority and the residents are doing their utmost to improve the amenities in this highly-industrialised part of Audenshaw, and that they are being greatly discouraged by the Minister's action in making this decision? May I appeal to him to ask his right hon.-Friend again to consider this matter, in order to encourage the local authority in doing the best it can for its own people?

My right hon. Friend has no power now to alter the decision until fresh circumstances are produced. It remains with the local authority to make a fresh application in three years' time.

Will the Minister be good enough to instruct his officials to go there again, to have another look at the situation in this area, and to discuss the matter with the authority and with others affected by the decision?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the basis of fixing the gross value for rating purposes of new blocks of office buildings in England and Wales.

The valuation officers of the Inland Revenue are at present valuing new blocks of office buildings by reference to the values of similar properties already entered in the valuation list for the particular area.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is quite contrary to the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, which governs the determination of annual value of miscellaneous properties other than houses?

Yes, that is true, but until revaluation is completed this is the fairest way of doing it, as I think the hon. Member, who has some knowledge of the subject, is aware.

Will the hon. Member agree that it is not a question of fairness but a question of applying the Act of Parliament?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) whether he will publish annual statements classifying town and country planning appeals to the Minister in a form equivalent to that appearing in Table C in Command Paper No. 8204, the first of such statements to cover the years since 1951;

(2) whether, in view of the length of time which has elapsed since the last publication of the Bulletin of Selected Appeal Decisions in town and country planning matters, he will arrange to resume the publication of Minister's decisions in a suitable form;

(3) having regard to the decision announced on 19th January last to resume publication of annual reports on housing and town and country planning, when it is intended to issue such a report; and whether it will cover the years since 1951.

I shall shortly be issuing a report which will cover the work of my Department during the years 1951 to 1954. The inclusion of the particulars for which the hon. Member asks is being considered.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when he says that he will "shortly" be issuing this report, it will be "very shortly," having regard to the fact that the decision to issue a report was announced 10 months ago, and that three years' material is missing? Is he further aware that, as present legislation is making planning permission a very valuable commodity, a study of the contents of the report is a matter of great consequence to a large number of people, and that it is very important that the information contained in the former bulletin published by the Department should be provided again in fuller form?

I am sure that the report will be a most valuable one, and that there will be no undue delay.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made in extending the provisions of the Waterworks Code contained in the Third Schedule to the Water Act, 1945; to how many water undertakers that code has been extended at the nearest convenient date; and to how many undertakers the code does not at present extend.

Up to 31st July, 1953, the provisions of the whole of the Third Schedule had been extended, for all practical purposes, to 11 water undertakers and parts of these provisions to 34 water undertakers. The code had not, at that date, been extended to 369 water undertakings, though its provisions had been applied, in part, for the purposes of particular Orders, to a large number of these. Certain parts mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to the Act were, of course, extended generally to all 628 undertakings operating under the Public Health Act, 1936, by Section 31 of the 1945 Act.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is not particularly rapid progress, and that so long as there is any uncertainty in the areas of the different water undertakers as to whether or not this particular code applies, the problem gets more and more difficult? Will he do all that he can to expedite the application of this code to all water undertakers as soon as he can?

As my hon. Friend is perhaps aware, there have been certain difficulties in getting on with this matter faster, but these difficulties have now been cleared away, and we hope that fresh progress will be made very shortly.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that, under the present control of advertisement Regulations, advertisements consisting of red fluorescent tubing inside a hotel have been held to fall within the scope of the Regulations; and whether, in view of the desirability of allowing reasonable freedom in this connection, he will consider introducing amending Regulations at an early date.

Provided that they are not visible from outside, there are no restrictions of any kind on signs displayed inside buildings.

Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is a good thing that hotels and restaurants should be allowed to illuminate themselves as much as they wish in order to add brilliance to their surroundings, and is that not all the more appropriate now that we have passed o through the smog of Socialist gloom and incompetence and reached all the golden glory of Conservative achievement and the broad and sunny uplands that lie beyond?

I have no wish to keep anybody's light under a bushel.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how soon he expects to announce his decisions with regard to the London Development Plan.

As soon as possible.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is 18 months since the end of this inquiry, and will he really try to do a bit better than his predecessor in this matter?

There were 7,000 objections to this plan, the public inquiry itself lasted nine months and since the end of the inquiry the London County Council has submitted to the Government some 750 modifications. Consideration of all this has naturally taken some time.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now announce the date of the public inquiry into the proposal to house Walthamstow's overspill population in Billericay and Wickford.

Arrangements have been made for objections to two compulsory purchase orders made by Walthamstow Borough Council on land at Outwood Common, Billericay, to be heard at a public local inquiry in Billericay on the 15th December, 1954. No order relating to land at Wickford has yet been submitted to my right hon. Friend.

Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that my constituents affected by this scheme have been left in great doubt and uncertainty since July, and can he speed up the inquiry?

This was the first date on which the inspector could be available, and, as I think my hon. Friend knows, the two orders were separated by some distance in time.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities are prepared to make improvement grants.

Eight hundred and eighteen local authorities have approved applications made to them for these grants.

While the figures are most encouraging, would my hon. Friend consider publishing the names of those authorities which have so far declined to make such grants?

I do not think that that would serve a useful purpose, but I will certainly see that it is considered.

Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that it would serve a useful purpose in making plain to the people of this country that, despite Parliament having declared its will on this subject, there are local authorities which do not wish to put it into operation?

My hon. Friend will bear in mind that the powers to make grants are permissive, and that my right hon. Friend continues to persuade those authorities which have not changed their attitude to consent to undertake these grants.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will extend to new town corporations the power to make ex gratia payments in cases where compulsory acquisition of land would cause hardship because no claim for loss of development value exists.