asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce to 25 per cent. the Purchase Tax on greeting cards printed in more than three colours.

I regret that I cannot single out these greeting cards for a special tax reduction.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any logical reason why those who have a greater love of colour than some of their fellows should have a greater burden of taxation put upon them when they buy cards?

It would be possible to say that it depended upon the colour. My real anxiety is about differentiating between these objects and others.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider amending the Finance Act, so that bonus shares given to workpeople, up to a maximum market value of £250 each and subject to them being retained for a minimum number of years, should be free of Income Tax to the workers.

I have noted the proposal, but my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has already drawn my hon. Friend's attention to the difficulties and inequities inherent in proposals of this kind.

While recognising that great inequalities would result from adopting such a scheme, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not better to encourage co-partnership schemes and forgo a little revenue for the Inland Revenue?

It is not so much the revenue as equity about which I am worried.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to consider making a tax rebate on petrol used in farming and horticultural machinery.

I will consider this proposal in due course as a Budget matter, along with similar proposals that have been made on behalf of other users of dutiable oils.

Will my right hon. Friend remember—I am sure he will—that the people who use petrol on farms and in connection with agriculture and horticulture are generally small men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—small men who feel that there is something of a discrimination against them by comparison with the big men, who use diesel fuel?

I am not quite sure that I can give an opinion upon the relative stature of the citizens involved, but I know that there is a great deal of feeling in farming circles on this subject. I am afraid, however, that I cannot go further than my answer on this occasion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the salary of the Chief Inspector of Taxes was increased from £2,750 to £3,000.

On 1st April, 1953.

Is it fair to say that this claim was met quite expeditiously and that there was no delay? Is it not a fact that in 1953 a claim was put forward on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Factories and the higher grades of his staff, which has been referred to a Royal Commission? Will the Chancellor explain why there has been so much delay? Can he give an assurance that when the claim is met there will be retrospective payment, in view of the delay?

I am afraid that I can give no answer to a question of such importance, to which I have not given the closest possible attention. I must confine myself to answering the Question on the Order Paper about the Chief Inspector of Taxes.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the financial handicaps suffered by persons who, because of physical disability, have to incur extra expense not incurred by persons free from disability; and what regulations on Income Tax allowance or other relief he now makes and intends to make to such disabled persons in respect of such extra expense.

The only provision of this nature is Section 217 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, which grants an allowance of £40 to a taxpayer who, by reason of old age or infirmity, has to depend on the services of a daughter resident with and maintained by him. The Royal Commission made certain recommendations on this matter which will be considered before next year with its other recommendations.

Does not the Chancellor realise that the Section to which he refers is quite inadequate to deal with the injustices envisaged in the Question? From his comprehensive knowledge of financial matters, does not he know that these injustices have been dealt with satisfactorily in other countries? Cannot Britain do as well as other countries in this matter?

The hon. and learned Gentleman does me too much honour in saying that I have a comprehensive knowledge of these matters. My knowledge is only relative, but it is supplemented by that of the Royal Commission which, as I have said, has made certain recommendations which it is important that we should have time to consider.

Is the Chancellor aware that if he decides to follow the very reasonable recommendations of the Royal Commission upon this matter of disabled persons, he will have the support of hon. Members on this side of the House?

I am glad to be aware of that attitude of mind on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial assistance will be given to local authorities to enable them to meet the extra cost of the increased interest rates announced by him on 8th July.

None, Sir.

Is not the Chancellor aware that this is a very heavy extra burden upon local authorities, and that there are plenty of precedents for giving extra assistance when extra expenditure is incurred? For example, only yesterday it was agreed to give fishing vessels extra subsidies to meet the increased cost of coal.

I am aware that this is an extra burden, but it is only bringing the rate up to market rate, and frankly, in the present position of the national economy, I think that my answer, namely, "None, Sir," is the right answer to give. Although I am afraid that it may impose a burden upon local authorities, they will have to take it.

Is it the policy of the Government that this burden should be borne either by higher rents or by higher rates?

I do not think that we need jump to such conclusions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he had with the various associations of local authorities before he decided to increase the interest rates on local authority loans on 8th July.

None, Sir.

Is it not most unusual to take an important decision of this kind—which so vitally affects the finances of local authorities—without even doing the local authority associations the courtesy of consulting them?

As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary remarked, the practice that we adopted has been inherited. One of my most distinguished predecessors—Sir Stafford Cripps—regarded such a course as being inevitable. As the Financial Secretary has declared in the course of debates in the House, we have been doing nothing unorthodox, much as I sympathise with local authorities.

Is the Chancellor aware that in 1952 his own Government granted extra financial assistance? Is it not inevitable that if he now decides not to do so, either rent or rates must be raised?

I cannot myself administer local authorities' finances; therefore, I cannot give hon. Members the answer to that question.

Will the Chancellor explain what he meant by saying that in the present situation local authorities must bear this burden? Did he mean to imply that they must stop building so many houses, or simply that they would have to put up their rates?

I meant no more than I said to the conference of borough treasurers and representatives of finance committees at Folkstone the other day, namely, that the more economy in local government finance there is, the better it will be for all of us.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total repayment, including interest, made to the Public Works Loan Board at the end of a 60-year loan; how much of that is required to pay the costs of administration; and how much is recovered by the Treasury.

At the current rate of interest the total amount repayable to the Board in respect of a loan of £100 for sixty years is £277 10s. No part of this sum is used to pay the costs of administration. The whole amount is paid into the Exchequer and is used to meet the cost of the National Debt, which has, of course, been increased by the amount of the Board's loan.

Is the Chancellor aware that local authorities regard it as somewhat cockeyed finance to overcharge them, then to give them subsidies to pay the overcharge, and then for the Treasury to make a profit out of the interest?

I do not accept the picture as detailed by the right hon. Gentleman.

If the right hon. Gentleman is overcharging local authorities by way of interest on loans advanced in order to build houses—which, we understand, the Government want to encourage—and these amounts have to be charged to the rents in an unnecessary fashion, does not it strike him that it is a little upsetting for local authorities to find themselves involved in this kind of finance?

The amount of interest may appear to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House to be large, but it should be remembered that during the early years of the loan very little capital is repaid under the annuity method, so that a large part of the principal sum is outstanding for a fairly long period.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate management costs, per £100, of loans on housing from the Public Works Loan Board; to what extent such cost is taken into account in determining the interest charged on such loans; and whether any profit or surplus results to the Public Works Loan Board.

The management cost per £100 of loans made by the Public Works Loan Board is approximately 4s. An initial fee is charged for this, and no account is taken of it in determining the rate of interest. No profit or surplus results to the Board.

Am I to understand from the answer to the previous Question that the profit or surplus goes direct to the Treasury? Is there any reason why the Government should make a profit between different Departments of their own organisation?

As I said in reply to Question No. 10, the National Debt has been increased by the amount of the Board's loan. I therefore think it not unreasonable that this very small financial transaction should be handled in the manner suggested.

I am glad of that explanation. Is this all that is taken to repay the principal, or is not that £277 considerably more than is necessary to repay the principal? What happens to the other £177?

I explained the reasons for the size of the interest in reply to Question No. 10. I am now asked a specific question about the costs of administration. I cannot add to my previous reply.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that his credit restrictions will not be permitted to hold up progress in the supply of coal and electric power and other services on the urgent supply of which our economic survival may depend.

I can assure the right hon. Member that there will continue to be very close contact between the Government and the boards of the nationalised industries regarding their programmes of essential capital development.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is important to use a selective method in the prevention of expenditure? If his method of a general onslaught, by the raising of interest rates, brings about a reduction in the power supplies which are essential if we are to put this country on the map, may it not have a very serious consequence upon the length of time required for this country to reach its proper place in the world?

I am aware that investment in power stations is more important than investment in certain other aspects of the Electricity Authority's programme, but I am quite certain that the various nationalised boards have the importance of priorities in mind.

Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the necessity for a selective rather than general restriction upon credit facilities?

I recognise that there is need for intelligence, which exists not only in the boards of the nationalised industries but also in Her Majesty's Government.

Will my right hon. Friend ask electricity undertakings not to borrow on short-term from the banks so as to lend on hire purchase?

We shall have to see about that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, in view of our balance of payments problems, he will give a directive to the Bank of England that firms concentrating on exports should receive preferential treatment as regards bank advances and other facilities as compared with firms mainly concerned with the home market;

(2) what is his monetary policy directed to encouraging manufacturers to increase their export sales.

I have seen no reason to modify my request of 7th December, 1951, when the banks and accepting houses were asked to ensure the highest priority for our defence programme and for our exports.

May we take it from that reply that, in view of the restricted funds now available to banks for advances to local undertakings, it is the Government's policy that every preference should be given to exports?

Yes, provided it is understood that there are certain difficulties in differentiating the proportion of export activity within a particular business.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the response of the banks to the request contained in his statement of 24th February; and if he will make a statement.

The request to the banks mentioned in my statement of 24th February was to adopt a more restrictive attitude towards finance for hire purchase. In response to this request, I understand that the banks decided to grant no new facilities for advances for the purpose of financing hire-purchase transactions and to allow no increase in the existing limits of facilities available to any customers for this purpose.

This decision has been operating since early March, in conjunction with the restrictions on the terms of certain hire-purchase transactions imposed by the Board of Trade. I cannot go further at present than to say that my right hon. Friend the President and I are keeping a close watch on the operation of these restrictions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what degree the sterling area is now dependent upon dollar imports of raw materials; how far such dependency is increasing; and which types of raw materials are involved.

In order to answer the hon. Member's question I must give a full reply.

Imports from dollar sources represent approximately one-third of the sterling area's total imports of raw materials from the non-sterling world. Materials which the sterling area draws wholly or in substantial proportion from dollar sources include aluminium, nickel, molybdenum, sulphur, synthetic rubber and manila hemp. There are also large imports, although forming a smaller proportion of total supplies, of cotton, softwood, wood-pulp, paper and copper.

It is not possible to provide any simple measure of whether the area as a whole is becoming more or less dependent on dollar supplies. New sources of supply are continually being developed both inside and outside the sterling area, and although I cannot speak for other Governments the extent to which U.K. importers have been given freedom of choice of sources has progressively increased.

Is the Chancellor satisfied with the tendencies of our trade with Canada? Secondly, would he agree that, if we are to go into the age of automation before long, we shall find that the absorption rate of raw materials in the world will be far greater than now, and that if we are to be dependent upon imports from the dollar area we may suffer a raw material famine? Would he consider what we can do to step up the geological survey in Britain and the Colonies and to find more geologists, technologists and people of that type?

Yes, Sir. The Government have given attention to the very important supplementary question which the hon. Member has asked. We are in process of seeing what alternative sources of supply there are in the conditions which the hon. Member states.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total investments of the approved societies in gilt-edged securities for 1925, 1935, 1945, and 1955, respectively.

This information is not readily available in the form requested by my hon. Friend, and could not be obtained without a disproportionate amount of work. I have, however, had some figures extracted, and I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for those figures, which I hope to look at carefully, may I ask him to consider giving permission to approved societies to invest their funds in other than trustee securities, so as to save their members from the losses incurred from continuous inflation?

That is a separate question to which I should like to give consideration separately.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he gave permission for the use of foreign currency by the Shaw Savill Shipping Company to enable it to place orders for three new vessels with German shipbuilders.

No specific permission was necessary. For nearly four years United Kingdom ship owners have been free to place orders for ships in European yards.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious concern felt among our own shipbuilding workers at the action of this company? Are the Government completely helpless, in view of the balance of payments problem, in handling a situation of this kind?

The Government are aware of the severe anxiety being felt. We are also aware of the possibility of retaliation in going back upon the policy which was, in fact, adopted in August, 1951, before this Government came into power. We have seen no reason to alter the general lines of this policy. Fortunately, incidents of this sort are not numerous.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects to make sterling fully convertible.

When the necessary conditions are satisfied.

Is the Chancellor not aware that at the present time the monetary markets of this country and of Europe are full of speculation about the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman is committing himself to a £ floating between more widely separated points than is at present the case, and that there is general agreement that this is doing harm to the position of sterling? Can the right hon. Gentleman make no statement before we adjourn to give information about his attitude and policy here, which can improve the position?

To do me justice, it should be said that I have never departed from the line of the statement which I have given to the hon. Member and to the House. It may be that it will help hon. Members to assess the position—whether it is of assistance outside I do not know—to suggest that some of these stories may have emanated from the discussions going on in Paris about the possibility of altering the European Payments Union and introducing, at some date when any European currency may go free under conditions laid down, a system under which free currencies and fixed currencies can operate together in Europe. In order to do that we have had discussions in Paris involving the setting up a new system of clearing and a new system of a European Fund. That was a wise precaution because it may well be that circumstances may alter in Europe. It may be that out of those discussions certain rumours have sprung.

To what extent has the right hon. Gentleman been advocating in Paris that the £ should be allowed to fluctuate more widely at some date in the near future?

I have never altered my attitude or my statement of the conditions that must be fulfilled before convertibility can be introduced.

May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of making any change in the matter before the House reassembles in the autumn?

It is not reasonable to tie the hands of any Government with regard to the currency of the country. There is also no reason for me to depart from the statement I have made about the conditions for convertibility, namely, credit, a sound internal policy, and a widening of the boundaries of trade.

As there will no doubt be discussions on this matter at the meeting of the International Monetary Fund, to which I believe the right hon. Gentleman is going, will he give us the assurance that, at least for the next three months, no change will be made; that he does not intend, for instance, to put forward any proposals in this direction at the meeting of the International Monetary Fund?

I do not think that any Chancellor of the Exchequer or Finance Minister of any country would tie his hands in relation to the currency. I cannot go further than the statement I have made on the subject of converti- bility. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; there will no doubt be discussions with the Commonwealth and with European Ministers and so forth at the Bank and Fund meetings in the autumn. It would be wrong to build more than is right upon any statements that have been made or to go any degree further than I have done in my own statement.

Do the Chancellor's three conditions for convertibility include a larger gold reserve than at present exists?

All these matters are relevant. There is the pattern of trade, the state of one's reserves—the pattern of trade is most important—the availability of credit and the internal economy. It must be clear to the House that the state of the internal economy at the present time wants a certain degree of tightening up. These are matters to which we all ought to pay attention. These being the conditions, I should have thought there was no reason for further rumours or stories.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of gold imports into this country from the Soviet Union for the first and second six months of 1954, respectively.

Imports of gold bullion from all sources amounted in the first half of 1954 to about 9·9 million troy oz. with a value of about £123 million, of which about 1·3 million troy oz. with a value of about £16 million were imported from the Soviet Union. In the second half of 1954 imports from all sources amounted to about 6·1 million troy oz. with a value of about £76 million, but there were no imports from the Soviet Union. The hon. Member understands, I am sure, that the amount of gold imported does not necessarily correspond with the amount of gold purchased from overseas countries.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decision he has reached on the rebuilding of the Queen's Hall in the light of the report of the Committee appointed to consider the matter; and what alternative action he is taking.

I am studying the Report of the Committee and am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Has the Chancellor decided to accept the proposition put forward by the Committee that it will no longer be worth while for the Government to rebuild the Queen's Hall? In those circumstances, would it not be better to consult the London County Council as quickly as possible with a view to seeing that the additional amenities required are provided on the South Bank, which is the best place for the job?

I am interested in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's observations. It is precisely because there are certain consultations to be held with the London County Council that I am unable to give a final reply on the Queen's Hall before the Recess.

Would the Chancellor also give very full consideration to the proposal in the Report to establish a music centre in the neighbourhood of Regent's Park?

Yes, Sir. One of the troubles is that there are so many requests for art and music centres that I want to be quite sure that in the end I am doing the right thing.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, while the trade negotiations with the Roumanians and the Bulgarians have proved unsuccessful because of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to old debts, the Americans have secured a large Bulgarian order for more than $1,000,000 of motor cars; and what his present policy is on this matter.

There is no trade agreement between the U.S.A. and Bulgaria. I understand that the order for motor cars mentioned by the hon. Member was obtained by an American merchant in the ordinary way of business. Her Majesty's Government place no obstacle in the way of the export of ordinary motor cars from the United Kingdom to Eastern European countries.

The bulk of our imports from these countries consists of raw materials and essential foodstuffs and is not subject to import restrictions. It is not, therefore, affected by the negotiations in question which are concerned mainly with goods which we control by import licensing. It is our policy to withhold licences for these goods unless we can secure in return additional facilities for our exports and some provision for the settlement of outstanding debts and claims.

Is there any improvement in the discussions about the old and outstanding debts with Roumania and Bulgaria? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information on that at the moment?

There is not as much improvement as I should like to see, but the matter is still under discussion.

Does the Chancellor accept the implication in the Question that the negotiations on these two trade agreements have, in fact, broken down—or are the negotiations continuing?

I should not like to say that they had broken down.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he expects to be able to close down the War Damage Commission; and when he expects the Commission to wind up its existing outstanding cases.

No date has been fixed for winding up the War Damage Commission. As my hon. Friend will realise, the completion of outstanding cases does not depend on the Commission, but on when the owners of war-damaged properties are able to carry out the works of reinstatement.

Legislation would be necessary to wind up the Commission, and in view of the number of cases where war damage has yet to be made good, the time is not ripe for this.

Can my right hon. Friend suggest any means by which appeals on outstanding cases can be speedily finalised, after preliminary hearing, other than by recourse to the courts, which is an extremely expensive form of appeal and one which many small individuals cannot afford?

I think that what my hon. Friend suggests would require legislation. I am not sure, but I will look into it. Of course, what is compelling the work of the War Damage Commission to continue is mainly that it cannot make cost-of-works payments until the work of repair has been carried out.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will use his powers under Section 3 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, to issue an instruction to the Commission to prohibit the creation of motor car and cycle racing tracks in the Peak National Park.

The National Parks Commission has no power to prohibit such a project.

Would not the Minister agree, however, that, although the motor industry needs this racing for experimental purposes, it is not really desirable in the public interest that public roads in national parks should be used for this purpose?

I do not want to express any view on the merits of the scheme. All I would say is that if the Derbyshire County Council decides to proceed with this scheme it will, I understand, seek the necessary powers by means of a Private Bill, in which case Parliament will, of course, have full opportunity to examine the issues involved.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to give an estimate of the percentage of the population of England and Wales which is without a piped water supply.

About 3 per cent.

Can my right hon. Friend give any idea of when a piped water supply is likely to be available to everyone in the country?

That I cannot say.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to give an estimate of the percentage of the population resident within the area of the Wycombe Rural District Council which is without a piped water supply.

The Census of 1951 gave a figure, for the Wycombe rural district, of about 13 per cent., compared with an average of about 20 per cent. in rural districts generally. The current estimate is 6 per cent., compared with an average of 12 per cent. in rural districts generally.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that in the Wycombe rural district there have been a number of cases where the spring and well-borne supplies have dried up even before the hot weather, and that the absence of piped water supplies in the rural areas is another of the main contributory causes of the movement of rural population into the towns? Can he not do a great deal more than is being done at present to encourage the development and provision of piped water supplies in these areas?

I am doing what I can over the country as a whole to try to accelerate the provision of piped water supplies to the rural areas.

Would the Minister be prepared to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the interest rates on rural water supply schemes?

I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend heard that Question.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he has considered the case of Stevens versus Birmingham Corporation, heard at Birmingham Assizes on 1st April, 1954; if he has considered the statement of the judge in giving judgment for the defendants regarding the desirability of making an ex gratia payment; and, as such payments are ultra vires, whether he will consider introducing legislation to give local authorities more discretion in such matters.

I have sympathy with the victim in this case; but in view of the difficult issues of law and policy which it raises, the hon. Member should not assume that it will necessarily be possible to introduce legislation on the lines proposed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this, again, is causing considerable difficulty to local authorities? Is he aware that in this case the bus driver was convicted of careless driving, and that Birmingham Corporation therefore feels that it has a very strong moral obligation, such as that which it had, for example, when it went to Mablethorpe? Is the Minister aware that that was a similar case where thousands of pounds were spent by a local authority without, as far as I can see, any Statute allowing it to do so? Nevertheless, we did it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Is the Minister aware that the present law needs drastic revision, and will he not consult the local authority associations to this end?

As I said, this raises very much wider issues of policy, but it is because of the special circumstances of this case that in my earlier reply I expressed my sympathy with the victim.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to introduce some legislation to give local authorities discretionary power to make payments in cases where any decent person would want to make them and where the local authority itself wants to make them?

The hon. and learned Gentleman merely repeated the point in the Question. I am aware of the issue and I am looking at it, but it is by no means easy because it raises very much wider issues than those raised in this case.

On a point of order. May give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the anxiety on the Durham County Council at his refusal to consider a nomination from the County Planning Committee for membership to either Newton Aycliffe or Peterlee New Town Corporations; and if he will give consideration to selecting a member from the committee as vacancies arise on the corporations, as a link between the corporations and the county council.

In deciding the composition of new town corporations, I am naturally happy to receive suggestions from any responsible quarter. I cannot, however, accept the principle that a local authority has a right to insist upon the appointment of one of its members.

Is the Minister aware that at the inception of these new town corporations in Durham the county council was approached and asked for nominations? Is he aware that it would be to the advantage of the county and the new towns for there to be liaison in the allocation of projects between the new towns and the rest of the county?

I think I am following the principles adopted by my predecessors, including my predecessors in the Labour Government, in this matter.

As Peterlee is in my constituency, may I have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that before he takes any action on the lines indicated he will consult the Easington Rural District Council, in whose area the town of Peterlee is situated, because the council has prior right to be consulted?

Consultation is quite another matter from accepting nominations from councils to include one of their members on the corporation. The Act provides that certain consultations are required with the local authorities concerned, and, naturally, I conform to my statutory obligations.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that, five years ago, when Mr. and Mrs. Holland, bought their house, known as The Cottage in the Wood, Worth, Sussex, it appeared on the master plan of the Crawley Development Corporation as being within a green belt; and why Mr. and Mrs. Holland were not informed when this green belt area was altered.

This land was never at any time zoned as part of a green belt.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Holland has been shamefully treated in this matter; that he was given an assurance by the Crawley Development Corporation at the time he bought this house that it was in a green belt and that he was shown a master plan to that effect; that that was also confirmed by the local authority, and that he has never been notified of any change? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the appeal by Mr. Holland's neighbour which has recently been upheld by his Ministry was a travesty of justice, as Mr. Holland received only two days' notice of this appeal and could not even be represented at it? Would my right hon. Friend do something about it?

I do not know about the circumstances to which my hon. Friend referred in the latter part of his supplementary question. All I would say is that if the purchaser was under the impression that his property was in the green belt, there was a misunderstanding. Even if it had been in the green belt, it is quite possible that the construction of this house—to which objection has been taken—between Mr. Holland's house and the neighbouring would none the less have been approved. It does not follow that because it was in the green belt it would have been improper to put an additional house between two existing houses already in the green belt.

On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many families from Middlesex have obtained housing accommodation in the new towns since 6th May, 1953; and how many of these families obtained their accommodation by means of the industrial selection scheme.

Since that date about 4,000 families from Middlesex have been housed in the new towns around London. Of these at least 2,000 obtained their accommodation by reason of the fact that they were employees of firms moving from Middlesex to the new towns.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that that does not answer my Question in relation to the industrial selection scheme? I wanted the figures for the industrial selection scheme, and the 2,000 families he has mentioned did not, I take it, all come through that scheme.

It is rather difficult to say what is included in the industrial selection scheme. I can say that the figure—which, incidentally was 4,000, not 2,000—does include 400 families who were specially recruited by firms after they had decided to move out from Middlesex to the new towns. I think that that provides the hon. Lady with the figures she wants.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware of the number of urgent housing applications at present on the lists of local housing authorities; and what steps he is taking to speed up the supply of new houses to deal with these urgent cases.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to ensure that those whose housing needs are most urgent are given priority.

I am aware that there are still many families without satisfactory housing accommodation. The continuance of house building at a high rate is the best way to help them. We must, I think, rely upon local authorities to allot their houses to those families who have the greatest need.

In view of that reply, how is it that the Minister and his Department are, in fact, imposing restrictions on the number of houses that local housing authorities are allowed to build? Is he aware that unless in all our large towns—including London—there is a very substantial increase in the number of houses built to be let, there will be many scores of thousands of urgent cases which cannot be housed?

Has the right hon. Gentleman yet found a better explanation than the weather for the fact that there were 40,000 fewer houses under construction by local authorities at the end of the last quarter than there were a year ago?

There is a later Question on that subject on the Order Paper.

May I ask the Minister to reply to my Question, No. 53, in which I asked what steps he is taking to help in solving this problem? Is he aware that nothing he has yet said has been helpful? Is he also aware that, if the policy of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer continues, the people who need houses most will be put at the back of the queue and not at the front?

What we are doing is to maintain a high rate of house building—[HON. MEMBERS: "A high rate of interest."]—a high rate of house building for letting and for sale.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has considered the difficulties arising to local authorities in dealing with overspill, by virtue of the fact that no powers exist whereby they can exercise the right to place tenants from housing registers into houses from which tenants have been rehoused by the local authority; and whether he is in a position to give the Government policy upon this matter and to introduce legislation to give the local authority powers.

I propose shortly to arrange to meet a deputation from some of the local authorities principally affected, to discuss with them generally the problem of relieving urban congestion. Meanwhile I have no statement to make.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that statement will be received with some satisfaction by local authorities? Is he aware that the fact that landlords invariably sell rented houses immediately the tenants have died or been rehoused, and that people are thus attracted into areas from which we are trying to overspill, is the greatest obstacle to the solution of the problem of overspill, apart perhaps from the question of land? Will the Minister bear that particularly in mind in the discussions which he intends to have?

I am glad to feel that I have given the hon. Member some satisfaction.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the number of applications received from local authorities for permission to relet requisitioned properties which have become vacant, and the number of applications which have been approved.

So far, scarcely any such applications have been dealt with.

Will the Minister say whether, in view of the short time in which such applications have to be considered under the Act—one month—he proposes to set up any special machinery for their consideration and to issue any advice to local authorities on this subject?

I do not know what machinery the hon. Member has in mind. I have not the Act before me, but, if my memory is correct, the time permitted to the Minister to consider these applications is unlimited.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will give an assurance to local authorities that he will increase the yearly housing allocation of each authority by a number equal to the number of temporary prefabricated houses to be demolished by it in the year.

The number of families in temporary dwellings who require to be rehoused is, of course, one of the factors which are taken into account when considering the size of a local authority's building programme.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, which I am sure will give satisfaction, may I ask him whether he realises the dilemma in which he places local authorities at the moment in asking them for a return of the number of prefabricated houses to be demolished when they are not certain whether they will get an allocation of houses to replace them?

It is a case of the chicken and the egg. We must know the intentions of local authorities before we can decide what size their building programme ought to be. The purpose of the circular was merely to find what the local authorities concerned would like to do in the matter of the demolition of temporary houses.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he improves the hatch by giving all the eggs to private builders?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will cause to be published in the quarterly housing summaries a table, showing the total number of new houses and flats built, as part of local authority slum clearance schemes.

Yes, Sir. I am at present considering how the Quarterly Housing Returns could be amended to provide this information in the most convenient form.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on what date permission was given to local councils to sell houses built by them; the number of houses sold since then; and what percentage of the total houses built by councils this figure represents.

General consent was given to local authorities to sell council houses to sitting tenants, by circular dated 26th August, 1952. Up to the end of last month 3,868 council houses had been sold under these arrangements. This represents about 0·7 per cent. of the total number of council houses built during that period.

Will the Minister please carefully study the Answer that he has now given and realise that those who can buy houses and those who rent them are not interchangeable and, therefore, the need at present is to speed up the building of houses to rent and not to penalise people who can afford only to rent houses?

The increasing number of houses being built by private enterprise and sold reduces the number of people who wish to buy council houses.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government by how many houses council house building has declined comparing 1953, 1954 and the current year; and by how many houses private building has increased in these same three periods.

The figures asked for are contained in the published Housing Returns.

Could not the Minister have given those figures? Is it not sometimes the custom to give figures, although they are in reports, as they are of great interest? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to study the figures, because they bear out the contention that people who have to rent houses are having an extremely raw and worsening deal from the Government?

In not reading out a series of figures from reports, I was following the practice well established by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan).

Do not those figures in fact show that during the first five months of this year there was a fall of 9,000 in the number of council houses built compared with last year? What explanation has the right hon. Gentleman, other than the weather, for that fact and for the fact that the number under construction is 40,000 fewer than it was last year? Is not the real reason that the right hon. Gentleman is cutting down allocations?

In the first five months of this year public authorities built 88,500 houses, which is substantially more than in any corresponding period under the Labour Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that adequate precautions will be taken to prevent injury to people in other countries from clouds of radioactive dust when the British hydrogen bomb is exploded; and.if he will make a statement.

I have been asked to reply.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir" and to the second part "No, Sir."

Is the Minister aware that the complacency of his reply is not shared by people outside? Is he further aware that the scientists of the world do not share his complacency on this question, and that there is no responsible person who agrees that it is yet possible to prevent air currents carrying this dust to other lands and other peoples? Would it not be more civilised to stop the experiment altogether?

The answer to the latter part of the supplementary question is, "No, Sir." The answer to the first part is that there is no question of complacency in the reply I gave on behalf of the Prime Minister, which had been most carefully thought out with the best scientific information available. The answer is, if anything, cautious but not complacent.

Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether he is satisfied that there is no risk of trouble for other people as a result of these explosions, and whether the Government have considered holding up the experiment—by international agreement, not by us acting alone—pending the discussions at Geneva as an outcome of which we hope this business will be stopped altogether?

Naturally we all hope that the outcome of the Geneva talks will have that very desirable result, but I am afraid I could not go further than the Answer I have given this afternoon.

On the first part of the question I put to the right hon. Gentleman, could he say whether the Government are satisfied that as a result of these explosions there is no danger to the physical well-being either of our own people or of people in other countries?

As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), the Answer I gave was based on the best advice that has been available to Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, I can give no further answer.

Would not the Chancellor agree that, whatever may be the actual risk of any particular explosion, the proposal to ban further test explosions holds the field as the only practical first step in nuclear disarmament?

That question raises very wide issues. Of course there is a great deal of value in the suggestion made by the right hon. Member.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to change the name of the Colonial Office to one more consonant with modern developments.

My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion to introduce legislation on this subject at the present time.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister when he has time—say in the autumn—to give further consideration to this matter, which, I suggest, would bring a great deal of satisfaction to a great many people?

I am, of course, aware of the underlying motives of the Question put by my hon. Friend. I am also aware of the traditions and honour behind this title, to which I think we should also pay attention. Of course, I will bring my hon. Friend's Question to the attention of the Prime Minister, but I cannot give any guarantee that he will alter his opinion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am a Colonial, and proud to be one, but a great deal of time has passed since I was a child?

The hon. Member, like so many of the colonial dependencies, has grown up and increased in stature and honour.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce when it is proposed to appoint a committee to inquire into the problems of practice and procedure in relation to administrative tribunals.

My right hon. Friend hopes to send invitations within the next week or ten days to those he would like to sit on this Committee.

asked the Prime Minister to which Minister questions affecting the salaries paid to members of the boards of nationalised industries should be addressed.

Questions about the pay and membership of the board of a nationalised industry should be put to the Minister responsible for making appointments to the Board.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that on 6th July I put a Question to the Minister responsible asking what salary Lord Balfour of Inchrye was being paid as a part-time member of the board of B.E.A.C. and the Minister referred me to a White Paper which is to be published next December? Is the Chancellor further aware that since this Question was put down I received a letter from the Minister, yesterday, telling me that Lord Balfour is to be paid £500 a year? Why did he not answer that Question on the Floor of the House?

I have certainly followed this voluminous series of Questions and Answers and the correspondence, which I have with me this afternoon. I am very glad to hear that the hon. Member has at last received the answer he so much desired.

asked the Prime Minister what proposals he is making at Geneva to establish a pattern of trade which can take care of possible unemployment in the armaments industry if the conference is successful.

It would be premature to anticipate the results of the Geneva Conference, or any action which Her Majesty's Government may need to take as a result. But any relief to the economy which that Conference may make possible should be accepted as a fresh opportunity for developing our pattern of economic growth and reinforcing our policy of liberating and expanding international trade.

Will the Chancellor be good enough to mention this matter to the Prime Minister, because this is a study that ought to be made now, as we are all hopeful of the outcome of the Geneva Conference and similar conferences for world peace?

Yes, Sir. I not only discussed this matter with the Prime Minister before he left, but I shall also see that the Question put by the hon. Member is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Russian Defence Minister is included in the Russian delegation to Geneva, and that both the French and the Russian Prime Ministers have expressed the desire to reach decisions of principle on disarmament at the summit talks, he will invite the Minister of Defence to join him at Geneva.

I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will augment the delegation if he considers it desirable.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that public opinion expects the Prime Minister to give the question of disarmament high priority in the Geneva talks? Would not inclusion in the delegation of the Minister of Defence, who has had a great deal of experience in these matters, be an earnest of the desire of the Government to attempt to close the small remaining gap between the Western and the Soviet viewpoints on this question?

There is absolute sympathy of opinion between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence. The Prime Minister is well aware of the experience and attitude of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Defence. I think we must leave the matter to the discretion of the Prime Minister.

asked the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the subjects discussed and decisions reached at his series of conferences in 10, Downing Street, which ended on 8th July, 1955, with the chairmen of the nationalised industries and at the previous conferences with those chairmen and with representatives of the Trades Union Conference and of the British Employers Federation;

The meetings which my right hon, Friend the Prime Minister has had recently with representatives of the British Employers' Confederation, the nationalised industries and the Trades Union Congress have given him a welcome opportunity to hear at first hand their views on the present state of industrial relations. The discussions, which were informal and exploratory, were of a general nature and will be followed up by further talks between my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour and the representatives concerned. The subject of industrial relations has, in fact, been placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the National Joint Advisory Council on 27th July.

Did the meetings discuss the losses which the nation has sustained by the disintegration of the transport system?

I should not like to go into further detail than has been given in my statement.

Is it intended to inform the House of the progress of these consultations?

I have just indicated that the matter is now to be taken further by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour at the next meeting of the N.J.A.C. That is as far as we can say, but the House will, of course, be kept informed of any development.