asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what towns are affected by his proposed sale of temporary prefabricated houses; how many such houses are to be sold in each of these towns; and if he will give an assurance that he will not sell any of these houses until he has been assured by the local authority concerned that the occupants have been satisfactorily re-housed.

Forty-one local authorities have said that they may want some of their temporary houses removed during 1955. Precise figures are not yet available, though the total amounts probably to about 2,000. Only vacant houses will be offered for sale.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, provided it is seen that those who are evicted are given alternative accommodation, it will give great satisfaction to the country that the Government's housing programme has progressed so far as to make possible a start on replacing these temporary dwellings by permanent dwellings?

The question of alternative accommodation, as my hon. Friend no doubt realises, is primarily a matter for the local authorities.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce amending legislation to the Housing Act, 1949, to permit local authorities to make grants to householders for improvement works in cases where application for a grant have been rejected solely because, through ignorance of the law, they were not submitted until after the work had been started.

No, Sir.

Would not the Minister agree that, at the present day, when many laws are so complicated and citizens cannot be expected to know them all, it is unfortunate when a citizen in one house gets paid a grant and another in a house in the same street does not, because he did not know the details of the law?

In general, I agree that the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse is a very bad principle, but in this particular case, I feel—[Interruption.] Have I got it the wrong way round? If so, I meant to say that I feel that ignorance of the law is a jolly good excuse, but in this case it is not really a matter of ignorance of the law. I feel that the provision which this law contains, that prior approval must be obtained before the works for which a grant is to be claimed are started, is a very reasonable safeguard against waste of public money.

Is not the real trouble the ignorance of the law itself?

Everyone is ignorant of the law.

In view of the complications that often attend applications of this kind, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider sending a circular to local authorities, asking them to have an officer available at the council offices to give comprehensive replies to the inquiries of those who wish to embark on these schemes?

Let me make it quite clear that I am very much in favour of everybody possible availing themselves of these facilities. If there is anything that I can 'do to bring the facilities more prominently to the notice of all concerned, I shall be glad to consider it.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what grants have been made by him to the borough councils of Shaftesbury, and Blandford, the urban council of Wimborne, the rural district councils of Sturminster-Newton, Shaftesbury and Gillingham, Blandford and Wimborne, and Cranborne under the Housing Act, 1949, for the repair of houses for each of the years ended 31st October, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1954; and what applications for grants have separately been received from these several councils under the 1954 Act.

I assume that both parts of the Question refer to grants for improvements and conversions. As the answer must involve tabulated figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I appreciate that many figures are involved, but is my hon. Friend satisfied with the progress made by all the local authorities which are

With regard to the second part of that supplementary question, comparisons are not readily available. With regard to the first part, there is always room for improvement.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the numbers of houses completed annually for 1948 to 1953, respectively, by the Rugby local authority; and what are the housing allocations for 1954 and 1955, respectively.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many new houses he estimates will be provided in 1955 by local authorities and private builders, respectively.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he has reduced Coventry's allocation of new municipal houses for the next year from 2,000 to 1,500; and whether he is aware that the proposed new total is inadequate for the city's housing need.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) what instructions he has given to his regional officials with regard to the allocation of houses to be built by local authorities in the year 1955;

(2) How many houses are likely to be completed by local authorities for the year ended 31st December; and how many he anticipates they will build in the year ending 31st December, 1955.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) why he has cut the allocation of council houses at Knottingley and refused permission for the building of houses in accordance with its plans;

(2) why he has refused to allow the Goole Council to build 183 houses and flats next year, and cuts its allocation to 123;

(3) how many local authorities have had their housing plans for next year reduced by his action; and the total number of council houses and flats for which he has refused permission to build.

I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for Rugby asked for in the first part of Question No. 8.

The number of subsidised houses built for letting in Great Britain during the present year is likely to be somewhat over 250,000 including about 220,000 built by local authorities. In addition some 90,000 houses will be provided by private enterprise.

It is not customary to publish figures of authorisations, or forecasts of completions in respect of future years. I can, however, say that the authorisations already issued or shortly to be issued should be sufficient to enable local authorities to complete about the same number of houses next year as they have done this year, which is an all-time record.

While thanking the Minister in anticipation for the figures which I hope to get—whatever they may be—may I ask the Minister if he is aware of the very acute housing shortage in Rugby, due to the influx of workers for the booming export industries of engineering and cars? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Is the Minister aware of the disappointment at the number of houses which have been built, and will he look sympathetically on any future request by the town council for an increase in its housing allocation?

I am glad to hear that prosperity has come to Rugby—

It has always been there.

—though this may create increased problems. Naturally I will consider any representations which the hon. Member or the council wish to make.

Is the Minister aware that his omnibus reply will not be well received in Coventry, where there are 10,000 people on the housing list? Is he further aware that there is general dissatisfaction with his under-the-counter method of altering the housing ratio, and in those circumstances is he prepared to receive a deputation from the Coventry City Council about this matter?

I do not know what the hon. Member means by "under-the-counter method of altering the ratio." If he means the ratio between local authorities and private enterprise, I can assure him that we are not working to any fixed ratio whatsoever as between local authority and private enterprise building. This criticism comes ill, both from him and from other hon. Members opposite, in that in their best year the previous Government provided 195,000 houses to let, whereas, as I have just announced, in the present year we are providing over 250,000 houses.

Will the Minister be good enough to give an answer to my Question, which he lumped in with several others? Why has he refused to allow councils to build as many houses as they had planned to do during next year? Will he also say why, as his predecessor instructed local authorities to go full steam ahead and build as many council houses as they could, he is now restricting them in the fulfilment of the plans which they had prepared?

I do not think that the hon. Member heard my answer—

I listened carefully.

—in which I said, and I will read out the passage again to make it quite clear:

"…authorisations already issued or shortly to be issued should be sufficient to enable local authorities to complete about the same number of houses next year as they have done this year, which is an all-time record."

Since Her Majesty's Government recently decided to abolish all licences, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that local authorities will be able to obtain all the materials which they require in order to maintain a housing programme in 1955 of not less than that which they were able to complete in 1954?

I have not referred to building materials. I have said that we have issued sufficient authorisations to enable local authorities to complete as many houses in 1955 as they completed during this last year, and I have every reason to believe that the necessary materials will be available.

Do the figures of houses built to let which the Minister has given include houses to be built by private enterprise, and not allocated by local authorities according to need?

In my reply I referred to subsidised houses built for letting. That includes the houses of local authorities, housing associations, and various other agencies, but it does not include houses built by private enterprise to let without subsidy.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman trying to cover the fact that all over the country he or his regional representatives have been making savage and indeed callous cuts in council housing programmes? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The figures provided will substantiate that accusation. Why is he taking houses started in 1952 into the calculation for the purpose of bolstering up these purely fictitious figures? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Will the Minister explain which local authorities have had their housing allocations so vastly increased as to more than outweigh the savage cuts already made all over the country in respect of the 1955 council housing programmes?

I think that there is a misunderstanding about all this. As was pointed out by my predecessor several times, the issue of authorisations is a continuing process. Those that are at present being issued relate partly to building in 1955 and partly to building in 1956—

There have been savage cuts.

It is no use the hon. and gallant Gentleman or other hon. Members opposite trying to stir up controversy over housing—[Laughter.] They may laugh, but the only result will be to remind the country of their own ignominious record.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he has taken with local authorities to make it easier for ex-Service men to obtain houses on the conclusion of their time in the Services.

Valuable recommendations relating to this problem are contained in the latest report of the Housing Management Sub-Committee, which I shall shortly be sending to local authorities for their consideration.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that our whole recruiting problem depends upon his taking some positive action with local authorities to obtain houses for ex-Service men when they leave the Army?

I am very well aware of this problem and am giving it some attention myself. The difficulty is that in most cases these men have no residential qualifications in the areas in which they want to live, and we must do something to tackle that problem.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, he will withhold his consent to borrowing approval for housing projects submitted by local authorities unless the contract contains a guarantee by the contractor to make good defects appearing in the first two years after completion.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that many shoddy houses are being built, and that the present system is proving inadequate? Is he also aware that in the case of my own local authority considerable maintenance costs have to be met in respect of houses which have been erected for less than one year, especially for electrical fittings? Will he look at this matter again?

On the whole this is a matter which local authorities should be allowed to settle for themselves. In most cases they insist upon a period of six months during which defects can be pointed out and repairs done.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has of the number of persons who are now in hostels, rest centres, or half-way homes, because they were homeless through eviction or otherwise; and what percentage have been using such accommodation for over two years.

About 7,800 persons, representing 2,150 families. I cannot say what percentage have been using such accommodation for over two years.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of these unhappy people have been living in this kind of accommodation for as long as five years? Could anything be done to bring special attention to bear on the situation of this very unfortunate category of people?

We are aware that there are certain special problem families who have been there between two and five years, and continual efforts are being made to provide the individual adjustments which have to be made in each case.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he intends to publish his decision upon the Smethwick Development Plan.

I hope to arrange for officials of my Department to meet representatives of the Smethwick Borough Council early in the New Year to discuss certain modifications which appear desirable.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask if he is aware that it has taken two-and-a-half years since the public inquiry was held, and that such inordinate delay causes great anxiety to local authority and business interests in such a borough?

Yes, Sir, I realise that. But very important and difficult issues are involved, and if, by taking a little longer, mistakes can be avoided, I think that it will be time well spent.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will bring forward legislation to amend the Private Street Works Act. 1892, so as to provide authority and financial grants to local authorities to make up unmade roads where such roads are in a dangerous condition.

Local authorities already have statutory power to make up private roads. But I am not convinced that financial assistance from the Exchequer would really be justified.

Will not the Minister investigate this archaic system? Is not he aware that very heavy charges are now being levied upon comparatively poor people who are unfortunate enough to reside in private streets which ought to be taken over by local housing authorities? Is not it about time that a system was introduced—where there are many of these streets, unfortunately inherited from the past—whereby the financial burden would be spread a little wider than it is at present?

Under the existing law it could be spread a lot wider than it is. Local authorities themselves have the power to contribute to the cost of these roads, but they very seldon do so.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) on what basis he assesses the capacity of a local authority to pay for new coast protection works; and whether he will increase the Exchequer grant towards such works;

(2) whether he will pay from Exchequer funds the full cost of restoring the sea defences damaged in the recent gales.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to the burden falling on those local authorities whose sea defences have been damaged in the autumn gales; and if he will make a grant against the full cost of restoring such defences.

Each application for grant is considered individually, having regard to the cost of the scheme and the financial resources of the local authority concerned. I will consider sympathetically any application for grant towards the cost of restoring sea defences damaged in the recent gales, but I cannot promise to meet the whole cost.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the gales which have caused the recent damage are not exceptional but are likely to recur annually, and are putting an intolerable charge upon local authorities? Does he agree that coast protection works should be mainly a national charge and should not fall upon small boroughs and individuals who are defending the whole country in defending their own properties?

That is quite a big issue of policy, which I do not think is suitable to deal with in reply to a supplementary question.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the difficulties in this matter is the fact that small local authorities are rightly hesitant about embarking upon this heavy expenditure, which should be undertaken in good time to anticipate these gales in future years?

Will the Minister also bear in mind that rural local authorities in counties like Cornwall have very long coast lines and very small rate revenues with which to meet the cost of coast protection? Will he consider sympathetically all applications received in regard to this matter and make substantial grants?

There is no lack of sympathy, but one must not always allow one's sympathy to decide the handling of public finances.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement with regard to the future of Staunton Harold Hall, Leicestershire.

The owner has given notice that he wishes to demolish this house. I understand that the Leicestershire County Council is considering making a building preservation order.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he appreciates the difficulties rural district councils are encountering owing to the refusal of the county councils concerned to apply for orders under the provisions of the New Streets Act, 1951; and whether, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of this Act, he will consider the introduction of amending legislation.

I am aware that the New Streets Act, 1951, has caused dissatisfaction. The desirability of amending legislation is being considered.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the urgency of the problem for rural councils? Does he realise that more development of new streets and new roads is probably taking place in rural areas than in urban and borough areas?

I believe that this Act was introduced as a Private Member's Bill. If any hon. Member should wish to introduce a Private Member's Bill to amend it and to deal with this problem, I should be prepared to consider supporting it.

Does not the Minister consider that his answer is a trifle unfair? When the Private Member's Bill was introduced, the Minister's Department gave it some sort of beneficent overlooking. If any anomalies exist in the Act surely they rest not upon the private Member but upon the House, and upon his Department for the guidance which it gave?

I hope that I was not casting any reflections upon any hon. Member. If legislation which subsequently proves unsatisfactory is passed, the whole House is obviously responsible.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will give an assurance that he will retain his Department's regional office at Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Our regional office at Newcastle will be retained; but the size of the staff and the scope of their functions will be reduced.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this decision will be warmly welcomed by local authorities in the North-East? Can he say whether the reduction in staff will lead to any slowing down of matters relating to housing which are put to the regional office by local authorities?

I hope not.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many schemes for slum clearance have been submitted during 1954; and how many of these schemes have been submitted by the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation.

From 1st January to 30th November, 1954, local authorities in England and Wales submitted 298 slum clearance compulsory purchase orders and 228 clearance orders. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short).

In view of the fact that that answer said that Newcastle had not submitted any, will the Minister consider trying to stir up the Newcastle Corporation to get on with this vital work, which it is showing no keenness to do itself?

The hon. Member can do at least as much there as I can.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to be able to pay the compensation due under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, for land compulsorily purchased by local authorities.

The Central Land Board will start making payments as soon as possible after 1st January.

Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that this money would be paid this year, and that many people are disappointed because it has not been paid?

There is not an awfully long time between now and 1st January.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in view of the uncertainty, inconvenience and hardship occasioned by the continued delay in making a decision with regard to the Middlesex County Development Plan, if he will expedite his consideration of this matter.

Yes, Sir, as much as possible.

Is the Minister aware that his predecessor promised me 12 months ago that a decision would be given in the second half of this year, and that this promise appears to stand very little chance of being fulfilled? Will he not do something a little extra in this matter?

I will try to do a lot extra, if I can, but a great deal of work is involved in this plan, which affects 2¼ million people. There were 7,500 objections to it, all of which had to be very carefully considered. We will expedite it as much as possible, but I am afraid that it will still take several months.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many schemes have been submitted to his Department under the Town Development Act, 1952; the date of the first scheme, and the names of the places involved; and when his decisions might be expected to be announced.

Seven—Ashford, Aylesbury, Bletchley, Letchworth. St. Albans, Swindon and Worsley. Discussions took place on all these schemes before proposals were formulated, and the first to be approved was the Swindon scheme, in April, 1954. Approval has since been given to the Bletchley scheme; those for Ashford, Letchworth and Worsley are still under consideration, while the St. Albans scheme is not being proceeded with.

To ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will state the qualifications of the two new members he proposes to appoint to the Halifax New Town Development Corporation; the source from which the recommendation to appoint was made; and whether the local authorities in the area were consulted prior to his announcement of the names of the persons he proposed to appoint.

On a point of order. May I point out that the word "Halifax" in the second line of the Question, should read Hatfield?

It would have been helpful if the hon. Member had told me that, but it is not the only inaccuracy in the Question.

The answer to the first two parts of the Question are in the negative. Since I have not yet announced any names, the third part of the Question does not arise.

Is it not a fact that two names have been circulated to the local authorities in the area of persons whom the Minister proposes to appoint, and that the New Towns Act requires the Minister to consult the local authorities prior to making appointments under that Act?

That is just what is happening, and what the hon. Member has described.

Surely, the Minister will agree that the local authorities should have a right to submit to him nominations for these appointments; but, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman has given them what is almost a decision, or the names of the people whom he proposes to appoint?

Not at all; they have been consulted about these two persons, and that is my duty under the Act.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that the filth and stench from the River Lee, in the area of Clapton, are gradually depriving the local inhabitants of the use of the river; and whether he will take steps to deal with this matter.

My right hon. Friend has recently received a complaint about this. I understand that the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board, which is the pollution prevention authority for the River Lee, expects improvement when the East Middlesex main drainage scheme is completed.

In view of the fact that the banks of this river provide a pleasant and much-needed promenade in a heavy populated area; that there has been a considerable volume of protest on the part of the local Press, and strong feeling among rowing clubs and boat owners about the disgraceful state of the river, will the Minister look into this matter very carefully and do what he can to assist?

I am aware that there are strong feelings, but, as the hon. and learned Member knows, a great many factors are associated with this question. I should be very happy to discuss them with him in detail if it would be of any help.

asked the Minister of Labour what plans he has for overcoming the anomaly existing in Merseyside of, on the one hand, a level of unemployment above the national average, and, on the other hand, a dock labour shortage.

The National Dock Labour Board is responsible for securing that there are sufficient dockworkers for the efficient performance of dock work, and I understand that the Board has authorised the recruitment of 1,000 additional men as a temporary measure on Merseyside.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether there is any artificial restriction on entrants to the dock labour scheme by the presence of an agreement between the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and the Transport and General Workers' Union that only those belonging to the union shall be entrants to the scheme? If that is so, does he not consider it an unwise policy, because the country may be paying unemployment benefit to men who might otherwise be doing useful work?

The answer is that the responsibility for deciding the size of the dock labour registers, which is the relevant consideration, rests entirely with the National Dock Labour Board, and it always consults the local boards.

Is the Minister aware that the present position is the result of the docks stoppage in recent times? The responsible people in the matter which has been raised are the employers and the union—not the Dock Labour Board, which controls the recruitment of labour—and they have agreed to swell the register? Is not the difficulty the fact that under this arrangement there is liable to be a period of redundancy, which those responsible are trying to avoid?

This is not the only difficulty that arose from the dock strike.

asked the Minister of Labour to what extent there is a shortage of labour in the county of Fife in industries other than coal; and what representations have been made to his Department on this problem in the last 12 months.

There is a continuing shortage of skilled engineering and building trade workers in Fife, as, indeed, in Scotland as a whole. There is also a recurrent local shortage of skilled dockyard workers and male linoleum and transport workers in Fife. During the past year, a number of employers in these industries have sought the assistance of the employment exchanges in recruiting their labour, and the exchanges have done what they can to help.

Can the Minister provide any facts and figures to substantiate this claim? Is he aware that local industrialists are continually making this claim without advancing any facts or figures in support of it, whereas, primarily, I think the reason is that they fear the introduction of new light industries to the area?

If the hon. Member would like to come to see me, I will give him all the facts, which it is rather difficult to do at Question Time.

asked the Minister of Labour when the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women will publish another report; and if he will make a statement about the work of this Committee.

The Committee will present another report next year. Since the publication of the first Report, the Committee has continued to advise the Minister on further action. I am glad to say that the recommendations of the first Report have been widely accepted by employers, trade unions, and the general public. Many restrictions on the employment of older workers have already been removed. Although we have made some progress, my Committee clearly realises that we still have a very large task in front of us.

asked the Minister of Labour the actual cash increase and the percentage increase, between August, 1946, and the latest convenient date in 1954, in the average weekly earnings per male wage-earner of all workers in all industries, and in the coalmining industry, respectively.

Figures are not available for August, 1946. During the period October, 1946, to April-May, 1954, there was an increase of 76s. 11d. or about 64 per cent. in the average weekly earnings of adult male wage-earners in the manufacturing industries generally together with a number of the principal non-manufacturing industries. Between October, 1946, and May, 1954, the average weekly cash earnings of all adult male workers in the coalmining industry rose by 112s. 6d. or about 78 per cent.

May I ask my hon. Friend if he is aware that the general public will read these figures with great interest in the light of the evident reluctance of the party opposite to the payment of another 1s. a week for the benefit of the old people, one of whose major difficulties is the high price of coal?

Is the Minister aware that, in answer to a Question by me a month ago, he told me that there are 19 million people in this country who, after deductions for tax and insurance, have less than £10 per week?

That has nothing to do with the Question. I was asked to give the average weekly earnings of people engaged in manufacturing industry and in coalmining, and I have given them.

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are employed at the Remploy factory at cleator Moor; how many were employed 12 months ago; how many have been engaged during the last 12 months; how many have been discharged during the last 12 months; the reasons for their discharge; and why this factory is not working to full capacity.

Fifty-nine severely disabled persons were employed at the Cleator Moor Remploy factory on 8th December as compared with 54 a year ago. Twelve engagements have taken place during the year and seven terminations, of which four were on medical grounds, two retired and one returned to ordinary employment. The number of unemployed severely disabled persons suitable for consideration for employment in this factory is at present only eight.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there has been any suspension of employment at the Remploy factory, and, if so, can he give the reason for it? Will the hon. Gentleman also say whether or not the factory is working to capacity?

The answer is in the figures which I have given. We are now employing five more men than a year ago. There are only eight severely disabled persons suitable for consideration for employment, and we shall get those into the factory as soon as we can.

asked the Minister of Labour what steps are taken by his Department to acquire the information necessary to call up immigrants from the West Indies in cases where they have a liability under the National Service legislation.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on 2nd November, 1954, and add that, where necessary, the information to determine the liability for National Service of any British subject entering Great Britain for the first time is obtained at a personal interview.

Will my hon. Friend consider whether there is any adequate reason why immigrants of all colours should not accept that liability in this country at the same time as they receive the country's benefits?

This is rather a complicated subject, but if my hon. Friend would like to come to see me, I shall be happy to give him the full details. So far as normal immigrants are concerned, we are quite satisfied that if they are two years in this country they do fulfil their liability for National Service.

asked the Minister of Labour how many young men are deferred from National Service under the National Coal Board training scheme for civil engineers.

I regret that the information is not available and could not be obtained without expenditure of a disproportionate amount of time.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that civil engineering trainees from the National Coal Board are attached to private civil engineering firms whose own trainees are not deferred from National Service; and whether he will now consider either nullifying the military deferment privileges of National Coal Board trainees or of applying them to the trainees of all civil engineering firms connected with the mining or quarrying industries.

I am not aware that this does happen, but if my hon. Friend will send me any information that he has I will gladly make inquiries.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish in HANSARD the correspondence relating to the German offensive launched in the Ardennes in 1944 which passed between him and J. V. Stalin in his letter dated 6th January, 1945, Stalin's reply dated 7th January, 1945, and the further letter he sent on 9th January, 1945: what action was taken by the Russians in answer to this communication; and whether he will publish his communication dated 17th January, 1945, sent to J. V. Stalin.

asked the Prime Minister if he will publish the text of the telegram requesting aid from the Soviet Command at the time of the German offensive in the Ardennes in the winter of 1944–45.

The text of the telegram which I sent to Marshal Stalin on 6th January, 1945, asking whether we could count on a major Russian offensive during January, 1945, has already been published, with the reply and my further message of 9th January, on pages 243 and 244 of my Volume VI of "The Second World War." The Russians opened an offensive in January, as Marshal Stalin had said in his message they would, and I am arranging for the further message on this subject which I sent to Marshal Stalin on 16th January, not hitherto published, to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

There was also an agreeable interchange of telegrams between me and Marshal Stalin on 25th April, 1945, pages 467–468 of my Volume VI of "The Second World War," which it might interest the hon. Members to read. I understand that sufficient copies of this volume have been made available in the Library to meet the convenience of Members.

While thanking the Prime Minister for his reply, and hoping that his statement will have the desired effect of further increasing the sales of that book, which is much warranted, and while appreciating the fact that, though hon. Members are able to read the book in the Library, many of them and many of their constituents cannot afford to buy it, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will agree to circulate these telegrams, in addition to the one of 16th January, in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

I do not think that really is necessary, unless there is a general desire for it in the House.

Is the Prime Minister aware that these telegrams are not so widely known as the telegram to which he referred at Woodford, and does he not think that the telegram in which he urged the Russians to undertake an offensive, and in which he thanked the Russians, saying, "May all good fortune rest upon your noble venture," and also his remark that the fine deed of the Russians in hastening the great offensive—no doubt with a heavy loss of life—ought to be more widely known? Is the Prime Minister not aware that hundreds of thousands of young Russians lost their lives, and that a few months afterwards he was prepared to build up the German military machine again?

Hundreds of thousands of young Britons lost their lives in the first two years of the war when the Russians were in league with Hitler.

As so much interest has been aroused about these telegrams and other telegrams, and all the rest of it, will not the right hon. Gentleman circulate a copy of the book to each hon. Member?

I should like to consider that, especially having regard to the Christmas season. Altogether, I find that from 1st January to the time when I gave up at the end of July, I received or sent 1,250 personal and private telegrams of the most secret character.

May I thank the Prime Minister for his promise of the volume?

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that ex-Captain Cyril Ward, a former senior cypher officer to the Eighth Army, decoded a message from Allied Headquarters in Italy in 1945 ordering all German arms to be stacked, with ammunition; and whether he will obtain from that source the details and text of the telegram that he sent to Field Marshal Montgomery in 1945 concerning the reissue of German arms to the Nazis.

It may well be that this was a repetition through a subordinate channel in another command of the purport of some message which I had sent about stacking arms. Both our Commanders, who were field marshals at the time, were receiving or about to receive the surrender of 1 or 2 million of German soldiers with all their equipment, so a lot was going on.

As the Prime Minister started his reply by saying "It may have been," would it not be as well to find out exactly, so that we may know whether or not this was the telegram which, in recent weeks, seems to have been mislaid?

At a time when the whole world is anxious to do anything that it may to improve relations between East and West in the conditions which have developed, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would be a good thing to give at least as much publicity to those telegrams of his in 1945 which helped that object as to telegrams in 1945 which were injurious to that object, and which may never have been sent at all?

asked the Prime Minister (1) on what authority General Montgomery refrained from arresting Grand Admiral Doenitz, Colonel-General Jodel, Chief of the German General Staff, General-Admiral von Friedenburg, Professor Speer, and other top-ranking Nazi leaders, until ordered to do so by a mission sent from Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force on 23rd May, 1945;

(2) on what authority General Montgomery permitted Grand Admiral Doenitz, between 4th and 23rd May, 1945, to form and operate from Flensburg, in Schleswig-Holstein, a Government purporting to act under powers conferred by Adolf Hitler before his death;

(3) on what authority General Montgomery permitted Grand Admiral Doenitz and his associates to continue to operate a broadcasting station at Flensburg, in Schleswig-Holstein, between 4th and 22nd May, 1945; and whether the broadcasts, including those in which the German troops and civilians were urged to co-operate with the Western Powers, with a view to regaining the lands they had lost to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, were authorised or censored by the British authorities.

Field Marshal Montgomery had no responsibility for any of the matters mentioned in the hon. Member's Questions. They arose, not in connection with the surrender of the German forces in the North-West to Field Marshal Montgomery on 4th May, but in connection with the general surrender of all the remaining forces, which was negotiated immediately afterwards by General Eisenhower and signed on 7th May. It is clear that General Doenitz was left at liberty for a time in order that he might complete the arrangements for the surrender of the forces under his command, He and his associates were taken into custody at a moment which suited the convenience of the Western Armies and their Russian Allies, who were consulted beforehand.

I should be glad to convey any apology to Field Marshal Montgomery which the hon. Member may wish to offer.

May I ask the Prime Minister, first, whether it is not a fact that all these events took place within the area of Field Marshal Montgomery's command, namely, in Schleswig-Holstein; and, secondly, whether it is not a fact that a great deal of concern was expressed by other Allied circles, including the Russians and the Americans, regarding all that was going on in that area and the use to which Nazi leaders were being put? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was difficult for Montgomery—[HON. Members: "Field Marshal Montgomery."]—to arrest those Nazi leaders who were on the list of Allied war criminals when other Nazi leaders on other war fronts had been arrested? Is it not a fact that General Eisenhower had to overrule both Field Marshal Montgomery and the Prime Minister, and send a mission from S.H.A.E.F. to clear up the whole mob?

The hon. Member seems to have enough material to put another three Questions on the Paper.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the country is heartily sick of these mischief-making Questions?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that it is the present intention of Her Majesty's Government to invite the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to attend the Commonwealth Conference, invitations will also be sent to the Prime Ministers of Malta, Nigeria, the Gold Coast and other Territories which, while not fully independent, have been granted a substantial measure of self-government.

No, Sir. These meetings are essentially meetings of the Prime Ministers of the member countries. Much of their special character would be lost if the circle of those invited were to be prematurely or unduly widened. There are long-established reasons for the invitation which, after consultation with the other Prime Ministers, I have sent to the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to join the Commonwealth meeting.

Is the Prime Minister aware that by distinguishing, by picking out, one particular country and inviting it to the Conference of Dominion Premiers, he is creating a very unfavourable impression among the other parts of the Commonwealth? Will he reconsider this matter, because both economics and defence are likely to be discussed at this Conference, matters which are of interest to other parts of the Commonwealth as well as the Rhodesias?

Sir Godfrey Huggins has been invited here for quite a considerable number of years. His personal qualities and position have to be considered, as well as the fact that he is a very eminent figure in our Imperial structure. They have been rightly considered, as have the precedents in regard to him, as well as the question of the Territory which he represents.

Is it not a fact that the Territories referred to in my right hon. Friend's Question have now reached the constitutional stage which Southern Rhodesia had reached when her Prime Minister was invited to this Conference? Will the Prime Minister not consider the effect of this, since to refuse to invite the Prime Ministers of Malta, Nigeria, the Gold Coast, and other Territories which occupy the same position—not Dominion status—in Africa may be regarded as discriminating against them?

All these matters have been the subject of prolonged and careful consideration, and they will continue to be under perpetual study.

Cannot this matter be reconsidered in consultation with the other Governments? May I ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind that his reply will have a very unfortunate effect upon the people concerned?

It is certainly a topic which will no doubt be discussed among the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth when they meet. The general question of the numbers who should be invited may well be considered.

asked the Prime Minister what recent revisions have been made by his scientific advisers on the number of atomic explosions that can be tolerated before there is any permanent increase in world radiation, with the consequent danger to the health of the people.

I am advised that no revisions have been made by our expert authorities which require any new statement by me.

Has the attention of the Prime Minister been directed to a speech made last week by Professor Haddow, who said that the danger consequent upon the production of the hydrogen bomb had increased enormously, and who called for some international prohibition of further experiments? Would the Prime Minister agree with that, and make further strenuous efforts in that direction?

My attention was called to the reported speech of Professor Haddow. I have not in any way concealed the fact that revisions are constantly taking place. When they reach the point where they require me to make a further statement is a matter of which I must be the judge.

asked the Prime Minister if he will ascertain what documents are still held by Field Marshal Lord Montgomery in contravention of the War Cabinet instruction that documents of an extremely secret nature should be destroyed immediately after they had been orally imparted.

The hon. and gallant Member seems to be somewhat muddled about this. A limited class of urgent secret messages sent to commanders at the Front, after being made effective, were by rule destroyed lest they should in the hazards of war fall into enemy hands. Copies were, however, of course preserved at home. It is hardly for me to say what official documents Field Marshal Montgomery was allowed to retain in his personal custody when he relinquished his appointments in Germany or later as C.I.G.S., since at both those times the party opposite was in office.

I am very much obliged to the Prime Minister for describing me as being muddled. If I am muddled, what about himself? The House will appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is doing his best to clamber out of the muddle, but he has not succeeded yet. Will he be good enough to tell us if Field Marshal Montgomery had no messages and the Prime Minister has no record of what messages he had kept, why the right hon. Gentleman sent a telegram to Field Marshal Montgomery in America to see whether he had had the telegram which the Prime Minister has subsequently discovered he did not send?