asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will be in a position to make a statement into his investigations about the Nelson annuity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now able to make a statement with regard to the Nelson annuity, and if he will in particular make known what official proposals have in the past been made to the Nelson family for the commuting of this pension in return for a lump sum.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a further statement on the Nelson annuity.

I have now considered this matter, but I have decided that we cannot contemplate further legislation. The question of commutation in return for a lump sum was discussed with the Nelson family in 1889 and 1904. On the first occasion commutation for 27 years purchase was offered, but this offer was not accepted by the Nelson family; on the second it was considered that a similar proposal would have been too unfavourable to the Exchequer. and the matter was dropped.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that today is Waterloo Day and that the heirs of the Duke of Wellington got full compensation? Why should the heirs of Lord Nelson have £5,000 a year stolen from them and get no compensation whatever? Why should they be singled out for this dishonest treatment, and would my right hon. Friend consider making a more favourable statement before Trafalgar Day in October?

The views held on this side of the House on that matter are well known, but I do not think it is possible now to go back. I think it was a very rough affair. On the other hand, one must take into account that at the time the annuity was terminated permission was given for the sale of the Trafalgar estates, which could not be sold before, and that was some compensating advantage to the family concerned.

Is not the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) as usual, in error, and was not yesterday Waterloo Day?

I did not hear what was said by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) but whatever it was, I am sure it was not worth listening to.

Would my right hon. Friend say whether any further discussions took place with the Nelson family before the pension was actually terminated?

Not under this Administration.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of the day did a great injustice by flouting the express wish of Lord Nelson that provision should be made for Lady Hamilton and their daughter, and that in the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman is doing the right thing by turning a blind eye on the efforts of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport)?

That is another question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the proposal for the gradual establishment of a common market by six European countries; and whether he will enter into discussions about this project with the Governments of the countries concerned.

Her Majesty's Government are giving very careful consideration to the implications for the United Kingdom of this proposal, and are considering how best to keep in touch with its development.

Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to bear in mind that it would be very unfortunate if a common market were to be formed in Europe, with great reciprocal advantages to the countries concerned there, and we were completely excluded?

Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, this is a very large and difficult question. I think that perhaps the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers will be of advantage to us at the moment because we shall have to consider its implications together with their views.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to co-ordinate the monetary policies of countries within the sterling area through close co-operation between their central banks.

The Governments of sterling area countries are responsible for their own monetary policy and for such co-ordination as is felt desirable and practicable with the monetary policies of other sterling area countries. The close relations which exist between the Bank of England and the central banks of other countries in the sterling area assist in such co-ordination.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will, in so far as such policies impinge upon the metropolitan economy, resist all further attempts by the United States of America, whether operating through State, departmental or other channels, to federate by economic means those territories of the free world which are part of the British Commonwealth and Empire.

I fear I do not altogether understand what my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. I know of no such attempts.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, ever since the end of the war and ever since we resigned the right of discriminating in trade, we have steadily seen American economic power grow and our own wane? Will he bear in mind that if he wants to ensure that there is a future for the British economy it is essential that we should do everything in our power so to arrange our taxation that British companies do not have to sell out to American companies, thus lowering our own power?

I think that my hon. and gallant Friend is rather anticipating the discussion which we shall have later in the day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tomorrow."] No, I mean the Clause dealing with taxation of companies overseas. In the picture which my hon. and gallant Friend has painted I think that, whilst we should maintain, and do everything we can to maintain, the strength and power of the British Empire and Commonwealth, it would be foolish to think that in the present situation of the world that can be done except by the closest partnership with the United States.

Does not the Chancellor agree, however, that the reasons why these difficulties are so acute at present is that the economic policies of the Government have entirely failed to produce the surplus of £300 million for overseas investment which was held out by the Lord Privy Seal in his Budget speech in 1953 as absolutely essential?

No; I think that, as often, the right hon. Member has taken a narrow and peevish view of a great question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, due to the continued rise in the cost of living, many trade unions in a number of industries have, since 31st May, tabled wage claims affecting thousands of workers; and, as these increases, when granted, will again increase the cost of our commodities and thereby the cost of living, whether he will now announce the Government's plan for stabilising and reducing the cost of living.

As I have made clear on several occasions, our best hope for stabilising and reducing the cost of living is that both sides in industry should exercise the utmost restraint in their demands for increases in their money incomes. I feel sure I can rely on the hon. Gentleman's help in making this clear to all concerned.

If the Chancellor can rely on the hon. Member, can the hon. Member rely on the Chancellor and the Government to see to it that they do not take any positive action—as they have done for the last five years—deliberately to increase the cost of living and thus compel trade unions to ask for more money for their members?

This prospect of mutual reliance between the hon. Member and myself is one I very much welcome and this new coalition will mark a great advance.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it reasonable to take all control off prices, profits, dividends and building and then to ask for wage restraint?

It was the right hon. Gentlemen opposite who made a bonfire of controls.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that in effecting economies in Governmental expenditure no increases will be made in National Health Service charges.

I would ask the hon. Member to await a general statement on the Government's economy measures. which I propose to make shortly.

Before he makes that announcement, will the Chancellor bear in mind, first, the recommendations of the Guillebaud Committee, and, secondly, that the Government no longer enjoy the confidence of the country, if we accept the implications of Tonbridge, and that the alternative Government is pledged to remove all these charges?

The hon. Member seems to be more engaged in making his point than in asking a question.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

12. Mr. LEWIS: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to announce details of the Government's intended cut of £100 in the current financial year.

Mr. Lewis.

On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a typographical error in the second line of Question No. 12? After the word "£100" should be inserted the word "million"—unless this is intelligent anticipation on the part of the printer.

May I now ask Question No. 12?

I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on 12th June.

May I ask the Chancellor for two assurances: first, that he will make the announcement before the result of the Newport by-election; and, secondly, that he will give an assurance that there will be no cuts in the social services and no action taken which will increase the cost of living? I should particularly like an affirmative answer to the latter question.

I think that the hon. Member had better await my statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what applications for grants towards capital development have been received from the Welsh Folk Museum, St. Fagans Castle, Cardiff; what decision has been reached upon the applications; and the reason for the decision.

This museum is a department of the National Museum of Wales which has from time to time asked for money in respect of capital development, including some in respect of the Folk Museum. Economic circumstances have not, however, permitted me to provide it. The rate of expansion of this department is reflected in the amount which I provide for maintenance expenditure, now nearly nine times what the amount was as many years ago.

Is the Chancellor aware that this is the pioneer folk museum of the whole Commonwealth, and the present arrangements prevent capital development of the museum? Is he prepared to put this Folk Museum on the same basis as the National Library of Wales and the National Museum of Wales, and revise the Treasury decision which prevents the Folk Museum using moneys from fees and sales for capital development?

These are rather obscure arguments between the Folk Museum and the National Museum of Wales, but what I have said is that this Folk Museum is a department of the National Museum of Wales and it is through the National Museum that we normally deal.

On a point of order. I asked the question whether, in view of the present arrangements, the Chancellor is prepared to put the National Folk Museum on the same basis as the National Museum of Wales—

I am afraid that I have nothing to do with that as a point of order.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make it a condition of Government permission for the sale of the Trinidad Oil Company that the dollar proceeds be used for Commonwealth development.

No, Sir. The dollar proceeds will accrue to the gold and dollar reserves, where they will be available for any purpose for which dollars may properly be acquired under current policies.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that these dollars might be used to repay the World Bank in respect of its investment, for instance, in the Kariba Dam project and thereby ensure that the very valuable contracts arising out of that shall come to British hands and not Italian hands, as appears to be the case at the moment?

Yes, Sir, the increase in the dollar reserves will make it possible, no doubt, to approve of projects which otherwise it might have been difficult to agree to. All that will be helpful and valuable, but I must issue a warning against any idea that we should make a kind of separate individual island of United Kingdom reserves, because that would really be contrary to the whole system of the general sterling area banking for which we are responsible.

Does not the Chancellor agree that what is happening at present in regard to the Kariba scheme is a further indication that we are failing as a country to meet the need for economic development in the Common. wealth, and that this is a matter which ought to be seriously considered by the Government and by the House?

I think "failing" is a strong word, and in any event that is not the Question on the Order Paper; but of course the greater we can make the successful working of our operations in our balance of reserves and balance of trading the greater can be our contributions to investment in the world in general—in the Commonwealth, the Empire, and the outside world. That is the object of our whole policy.

Is it not possible that the dollars to be earned in this way will be dissipated, or spent, in a manner which will not ensure dollar earning power equal to the assets now being sold?

No, Sir; I hope that this increase, as it accrues, will make it possible for us to make approvals of investment in countries such as Canada larger than those taking place now, and that we can improve this rate.

In view of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), with which we all agree—that it is a question of getting a sufficient surplus—is he not aware that that was exactly what I was asking two or three minutes ago, when he described my attitude as narrow and peevish?

Yes, Sir, the attitude of mind with which the right hon. Member approached it was, as always, narrow, partisan and peevish.

Is there not something to be said, when we sell Commonwealth assets—and this is a Commonwealth asset—for the suggestion that we might earmark the proceeds for the purposes of Commonwealth development? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that both in Australia and South Africa there is a dire need of capital investment which cannot be met in any other way?

That is what I was saying. I very much hope that it will be possible to approve greater investment in the sterling area, but I must repeat that any suggestion that we should make a separate United Kingdom account of this money would be contrary to the spirit and regulations of the whole sterling area system.

Will my right hon. Friend give two assurances—first, that none of this money will reach Colonel Nasser, and, secondly, that the money will not be frittered away in the same way as the party opposite frittered away the foreign investments in the Argentine and elsewhere?

I shall try not to follow that terrible precedent.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make it a condition of the sale of the Trinidad Oil Company that the price paid by the Texas Oil Company should be in the form of a transfer of shares from the Texas company's holding in the Arabian American Oil Company, so as to entitle Britain to a seat on the board of the latter company.

No, Sir.

Is not the Chancellor aware that that is a very unsatisfactory Answer? How do we bring influence to bear on this company, which is actively engaged in anti-British propaganda, if we do not seize an opportunity such as that which the sale of this company presents? Is the Chancellor aware that Aramco, in which the Texas Oil Co. and its partners, Standard of California, have a 60 per cent. holding, has been responsible for more friction between Britain and the United States than Chiang Kai-shek and Formosa?

The broad question will be the subject of debate tomorrow. What I have to decide is whether, under the Exchange Control Act, which I have to administer, authority should be given to any particular transaction. I do not think that the proposal made in the Question would be a proper condition for the Treasury to make. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We will argue it in detail tomorrow. I do not think it would be in the spirit of the Exchange Control Act, which was passed for the special purpose of defending sterling. That is the Act which I have to administer. I do not think that such a condition would be wise, and I do not think it would be acceptable. because it would have the result of altering the percentage of holdings of the different companies which form Aramco. In the long run—and this we can also argue tomorrow—the closer the relations between the oil companies and the closer the relations between the British Government and the American Government, the better we shall be able to deal with the problems which undoubtedly arise in the operation and the propaganda in the territory which the hon. Member has in mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now take steps to enable the control of the Trinidad Oil Company to be retained in the hands of people of the British Commonwealth; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to prevent the control of the Trinidad Oil Company being sold to United States interests.

I have nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 14th June.

In view of the fact that the United States, with its comparatively large resources of oil, nevertheless finds it necessary to place severe legal restrictions on the foreign control of its mineral and oil resources, does my right hon. Friend think that we, with our far poorer resources as a nation and a Commonwealth, can afford to be less careful than the United States? Secondly, following his statement last week, can my right hon. Friend now say that there is the same unanimity in the Caribbean and in Trinidad towards this transaction?

I hope that my hon. Friend will not think me discourteous if I do not answer the details of his Question. We propose to debate this subject for four or five hours tomorrow afternoon, and it is much more easily dealt in debate and in speeches than in Question and Answer.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great public feeling against the sale of the shares of this company to American interests, except among those engaged in the City of London in this transaction? Will he bear in mind the great public feeling against this transaction?

Yes, Sir, but it is the broad economic, financial, political, imperial and international aspects which we propose to debate tomorrow afternoon, I think on the Motion for the Adjournment.

rose

We should not anticipate tomorrow's debate. Dame Irene Ward.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make arrangements to ensure that when the proposals of the Joint Committee on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service are introduced, the assimilation anomalies resulting from the gradual scheme of equal pay which have been brought to his attention will be removed.

The arrangements ensure that no woman will receive less than the full amount to which she is entitled from time to time under the scheme for the gradual implementation of equal pay, and I do not think that any anomaly arises.

In view of the fact that this is a very complicated question, which has aroused great antagonism among the women in the Civil Service, who regard the present suggestion as a very mean action, may I, before I express an opinion and before a final decision is taken, ask my right hon. Friend whether he will receive me privately to discuss the matter? He dare not deal with the teachers in the way in which he is dealing with the civil servants, and I have very strong views about it.

As my hon. Friend, has said, this is a very complicated question. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Lady should take a bodyguard."] I should be very glad to discuss the matter with her and with any assessors or friends she likes to bring with her.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now able to adopt the recommendation of the Guillebaud Committee that the Ministry of Health should no longer be required to submit hospital building schemes of less than £100,000 for prior approval by the Treasury.

This matter is still under consideration.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has had six months in which to consider this matter, which needs only consultation with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health? Is he further aware that this detailed control of hospital development is anathema, not only to his right hon. Friend, but also to the regional hospital boards? When can we have a decision?

It is not quite as simple a matter as the hon. Member suggests. The present limit applies not merely to hospital buildings but to all other civil and defence projects. What I have to consider, therefore, is not merely the effect upon the administration of the hospital services, but the broad effect, if I were to change this structure, over the whole field of Government capital expenditure.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this treble check on this form of expenditure causes a great deal of frustration to the boards and to those other voluntary persons who are at present giving their services?

I want the hon. Member, who understands this matter, has been in public office and has had to administer great capital expenditure, to see the problem which is involved in making a system for this expenditure completely different from the system for any other form of Government approved capital expenditure. Frankly, I hesitate to take that step.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the continuing losses on Covent Garden and the need for a change in the administrative and artistic policy, he will consider removing the subsidy responsibility from the Arts Council and making a direct grant in aid with a condition that a new board independent of the Council should be established on lines similar to those of the Tate Gallery and other national museums.

No, Sir. I regard it as very desirable that the Arts Council should continue to adjudicate upon the competing claims for the Government grant which it at present administers.

While being a wholehearted supporter of the generous subsidising of the arts, might I ask if my right hon. Friend is aware that a great many knowledgeable people think that there should be a complete alteration, artistic and administrative, in the management of Covent Garden, which is now wasting a great deal of public money? I do not dissent from my right hon. Friend's remarks about the Arts Council, but is my right hon. Friend further aware that I do not think that the Arts Council is strong enough, either in personality or in argument, to deal with the management of Covent Garden, and will he take some steps to strengthen it?

I have to deal with a large number of Parliamentary Questions and a great number of letters and approaches to me, some wanting more public money to be spent on Covent Garden and about an equal number wishing a less sum of money to be spent on Covent Garden, so I find the inter-position of the Arts Council quite a convenient instrument.

Everyone wants Covent Garden cleaned up.

Order. Mr. Bennett.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total dollar allocation for United Kingdom private investment in Canada in 1955; and what increase is under consideration for the current year.

There is no fixed allocation; our policy is to provide dollars, within the limits of our resources, for direct investment in Canada which will benefit the United Kingdom economy. The amounts authorised were £32 million in 1955 and £18 million in the first five months of 1956.

Whilst agreeing with the Chancellor's early remarks that, for the reasons he has given, it would be wrong to earmark any specific sum of dollars arising from a recent oil deal, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he would not agree that this does give a splendid opportunity vastly to increase investment in Canada without in any way encroaching on our capital reserves? Is he further aware that many of us on this side of the House welcome this deal only on the assurance that something on those lines will follow?

I want to make two things clear. There is no preconceived ceiling or allocation, and if, as I hope, suitable proposals for investment come along, the result of this increase, or an increase in the reserves, will make it easier to agree to those proposals.

Is the Chancellor aware that there is an opportunity for tremendous development, in addition to oil, between Montreal and Quebec, in connection with the Labrador iron scheme? Is he aware that it provides an opportunity for making an agreement which would give this country and Canada an equal opportunity for the harmonious and mutual exchange of iron and other products, and that opportunity would come from investment at this moment, and might be lost forever if not taken advantage of now?

Yes, Sir. All these things are relevant, and I repeat that the country can invest only what it saves, and that is what we were engaged in debating yesterday.

Resign.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a number of employees at Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Chadderton, Lancashire, are under the terms of one agreement deprived of travelling allowances on the ground that Chadderton is in Manchester and under a later agreement are deprived of city rates of pay on the ground that Chadderton is not in Manchester; and whether he will take steps to deal with this anomaly.

I think the hon. Member is misinformed. The officers at Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Chadderton, who were denied travelling allowances when the offices were moved from Manchester to Chadderton have never been deprived of city rates of pay. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pay also includes a travelling allowance, and that these people were deprived of travelling allowance on the ground that Chadderton was still in Manchester? Is he aware that they were then deprived of the cost of living allowance, when that was introduced, on the ground that Chadderton is not still in Manchester? Is he further aware that this sort of "Heads I win, tails you lose" agreement is almost common in a whole series of the Government's activities, and now that the Government have gone into the gambling business and have a reputation to maintain they really cannot go on like this, because punters will not stand for it?

No, Sir. The move from Manchester to Chadderton took place in 1920, and I must ask the hon. Member to accept from me that there are no people who have suffered the dual blow that is alleged in his Question.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury the number of civil servants employed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office generally, and particularly at the Chadderton branch, and the number of these, respectively, who are and are not established.

Of the 3,044 nonindustrial civil servants employed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office generally, 2,441 are established and 603 unestablished. Of the 401 employed at Chadderton Branch, 308 are established and 93 unestablished.

Is not this a very large number of people who are virtually permanent employees, and is it not really the fact that year after year people are being "kidded" that they are to be established and work on year after year until they have to retire on mean and miserable terms?

There have been, and are, extensive arrangements for the establishment of temporary civil servants, and the member of the staff about whom I know the hon. Member has had correspondence actually enjoyed an opportunity of qualifying but, I am sorry to say, he failed to qualify.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury how many civil servants at the most recent convenient date had served for five years without being established.

I estimate that on 31st December, 1955, there were about 45,000 whole-time non-industrial unestablished civil servants with five years' service or more.

Is not that an appalling number, and will not the right hon. Gentleman do something about it? However the Government treat Members of Parliament, they might treat civil servants with some consideration and decency, and might try to establish a reputation as decent employers in that connection?

I cannot accept those allegations. Establishment in the Civil Service is a reward for merit, and we cannot compel temporary civil servants to apply for establishment. There is a competition open now for 30,000 clerical officer posts, but out of 17,000 people who are eligible only 5,500 have applied to go in for it.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider altering the law relating to Purchase Tax on imports of items brought into the country by overseas visitors solely for the purpose of purchasing British exports.

No, Sir. As I explained in reply to my hon. Friend's recent Question about order books, this would be impracticable.

Is it not a fact that the Customs and Excise Regulations already allow visitors to bring in, completely free of tax, luxuries such as 28 oz. of liquor and 4 oz. of perfume? Would it not be a good idea to allow them to bring in 4 oz. of order forms to buy British ex ports?

It is perfectly true that passengers are allowed to bring in small quantities of dutiable goods in the luggage which they bring with them, but what my hon. Friend asks for is that there should be a free entry for goods brought in as cargo.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) what progress is being made in the provision of houses for miners moving into the Warwickshire coal field; by what local authorities such houses are being provided; and in what numbers in each case;

(2) what local authorities have been consulted about building houses for miners moving into Warwickshire coal field; what local authorities refused to build such houses; and what reasons they gave for their refusal;

(3) what request was made to the National Coal Board to assist local authorities to build houses for miners moving into the Warwickshire coal field; and the extent of the asistance asked for and given.

The Councils of Nuneaton, Bedworth Urban District, Atherstone Rural District, Coventry, Tamworth Rural District and Meriden Rural District have been asked to provide houses for incoming miners. I understand that the first three have refused. Their objections were in part financial and in part based on the view that houses for incoming miners should be provided by the National Coal Board. The last three have agreed in principle to build 160, 100, and 50 houses respectively. The more detailed information asked for should be sought from the National Coal Board.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in view of the hardship being experienced by many gipsies, because of the increasing difficulties in obtaining suitable camping sites and because of the disparity of treatment being meted out to them in different parts of the country, if he will look into the matter with a view to introducing an enlightened and progressive policy in this minority problem.

The problem raised by gipsy camps is largely a local one, and my right hon. Friend is not satisfied that there is any policy which would be applicable universally; but he is prepared to consider particular difficulties which may arise within his sphere of responsibility.

Is not the Minister aware of the serious position that has arisen because of the enforcement of laws which make no allowance for the closing down of traditional gipsy sites? Is he not aware that many of the gipsies would welcome certain aspects of the segregation laws of South Africa? Does he not know by now that the problem cannot be adequately dealt with by local authorities, but only by the Government living up to their responsibilities to this minority, who are a helpless and a harmless group of people?

These encampments are very different in the character and in the occupations of their populations, and each case has to be looked at separately. If the hon. Member will refer me to the case which he has in mind, I will certainly look at it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a problem here which is beyond the capabilities of local authorities to settle, and whilst I accept my hon. Friend's point that there is a hardship to the gipsies concerned, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that there is equal hardship on the residents who are inflicted with these people at their back gardens? Will the Minister extend the scope of his responsibility in this matter, and see what he can do for them?

It may well be a matter which can more easily be dealt with by several local authorities in consultation than by one, but it is still not a matter for which any national policy seems to be applicable.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that it would be a great tragedy if this historical and picturesque community were squeezed out by the growing pressure of industrialisation and the bureaucratic system?

I am too great an admirer of George Borrow not to agree with that.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment, after I have raised the matter of white bread.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has considered the case recently made to him by the Birmingham City Council for a new town to house the homeless of Birmingham; and what action he is taking to deal with the problem of providing housing accommodation for those upon the city housing register and those to be rehoused because of slum clearance in circumstances where no more building land is available within the Birmingham boundaries.

Over the past year I have had discussions with Birmingham Corporation about methods for providing homes and work outside the city for its excess population. At my meeting with it last month, I made it clear that I look to the corporation to initiate precise proposals for dealing with this problem. When I receive these, I shall consider what help I can give.

Is the Minister aware that the corporation is having difficulties in making satisfactory arrangements with surrounding county councils? Is he further aware that other large cities are in the same position, and have requested that he and his right hon. Friends concerned should receive a joint deputation? Can he tell us when he is likely to receive this joint deputation from the large cities in respect of the building of new towns?

I am well aware of the difficulties. That is why I have had a number of talks, not only with Birmingham, but with other cities, such as Manchester. I am also, of course, going to receive the deputation mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. What I have suggested is that there should be a preliminary discussion beforehand between the officials of the councils concerned and of my Department to try to clarify the facts upon which our discussion could then usefully be conducted.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is a clear case for one or more new towns around Birmingham, not to say around Manchester? Is that not a matter which is his responsibility, upon which he should take some initiative?

There is a Question dealing with the broad issue of new towns which appears later on the Order Paper. All I would say now is that the creation of a new town is not excluded, but it is only one of the possible methods of dealing with this problem.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will draw the attention of rural authorities to the fact that dismantled prefabricated houses can be purchased at low cost, and give such authorities assistance and advice in utilising such prefabricated houses, under suitable conditions, in the provision of permanent houses.

I have not received proposals from any local authorities to buy and re-erect dismantled prefabricated houses in their areas.

Is the Minister aware that most dismantled "prefabs" are exported, because, out of the 2,000 inquiries from home buyers which arise every year, there are very few sales owing to difficulties of planning and other difficulties? Will he not, therefore, use his efforts, in view of the impending standstill of local authority building apart from slum clearance, to ensure that these dwellings are used to the best advantage for people at home who need houses?

I cannot at all accept the hon. Member's suggestion that there is a standstill in local authority building apart from slum clearance. Leaving that controversial party point aside, may I say that most of these temporary houses are, of course, still structurally sound, but they are on the small side for normal family life. On the other hand, I think that they might be very useful for the housing of old people, and I propose to look into this as part of the review which I am now conducting into the whole problem of the housing of elderly people.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals he has for the rehousing of workers who, owing to unemployment, have to leave their homes to seek jobs elsewhere.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) on 12th June, 1956.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Labour is busy encouraging unemployed workers to move elsewhere in their search for jobs, but that the most immobilising factor in the situation is the difficulty of finding housing accommodation in the new area? How can the Government expect workers who have waited for years and years and have at last got a council house under one local authority to give it up to go to another district and search for work?

The best method is to build a lot of houses.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Government's present policy of reducing the amount of house building for general needs is acting to the disadvantage of workers who have to move?

I expect that this year we shall build more local authority houses than were built in almost any year under the Labour Government.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement about the technical advances he observed in Soviet building and, in particular, their methods of covering pipes to prevent freezing which might serve to assist in regard to technical problems in this country.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, when on his recent visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to investigate methods of housing construction, he noticed new technical methods of housing construction that could be used with advantage in this country; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 13th June.

In my study of the problem of frozen pipes I am considering building practices in the Soviet Union as well as in other countries. However, in Russia the severe climate makes it necessary to take precautions which would be unnecessary and uneconomic in this country.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he was quoted in the Manchester Guardian as saying that these methods would be of great value in this country, and that this has aroused widespread interest among people concerned in this work? They are hoping that he will share his knowledge with them.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will send a circular to local authorities advising them against making contracts containing escalator clauses; and what negotiations he has had upon this subject with local authority associations or builders' organisations.

My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Works is inviting tenders for contracts on a fixed-price basis. In the light of the results, I shall decide what advice to give to local authorities on this subject.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the part which the contracts with escalator clauses play in stimulating and perpetuating inflation, and will he do his best to get this post-war development abolished as soon as possible?

There is no need to convince me of the advantage of fixed prices for contracts. The trouble is that, with fixed-price contracts, under present conditions, the fixed price tends to include an unduly high element to cover the possibility of rising costs. That is, of course, one of the evils of inflation.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the anomalies created by the relationship of the 15 per cent. compounding allowance, as prescribed by the Local Government Act, 1948, to the new higher assessments under the latest revaluation; and if he will consider making some adjustment in the direction of equity.

My right hon. Friend is not aware of any anomalies which it is not within the power of local authorities generally to overcome, but if the hon. Member will let him have particulars of any that he has in mind my right hon. Friend will gladly consider them.

Is the Minister aware that a constituent of mine had his assessment raised by 166 per cent. but his compounding limit was raised by only 38 per cent.? Since the compounding limit is governed by an Act of Parliament, will the Minister look at the matter?

A house which was subject to compounding before the new valuation lists came into force is still so subject by reason of the Act of 1955.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what schemes have been proposed to his Department regarding water supply and a sewerage system for the village of Radcliffe, Northumberland; and what action he is taking in this matter.

A water supply scheme submitted by the adjoining Urban District of Amble includes a proposal for supplying the village of Radcliffe. My right hon. Friend has asked the council for further information. When this is received, a detailed investigation will be made. No proposal for a sewerage scheme for Radcliffe is before him.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he agrees that it would be a scandal for a village like this, with hundreds of miners' families, containing chapels, schools, co-op stores, a bus service and the like, to be allowed to decay? Further, would not it be more scandalous still if those people were moved, like the Poles, as I understand they are to be, to the adjoining town of Amble, when they live in the village, were born there, and many of them hope to live there until they die?

The hon. Gentleman has raised matters in his supplementary question quite different from those in the main Question. As I have said, my right hon. Friend is waiting to investigate the details of the water scheme.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the average value of all rate-borne services per dwelling-house in county boroughs and county districts in England and Wales.

For 1953–54—the latest year for which complete figures are available—the average rate-borne expenditure per dwelling-house was about £31 10s. in county boroughs and £26 in county districts.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) what guidance he has given in terms of the Town and Country Planning Acts to local planning authorities in the giving of their consent to the building of new petrol filling stations;

(2) how many consents under the Town and Country Planning Act were granted in the past year for the building of new petrol filling stations;

(3) in how many cases in the past year he has allowed, and in how many cases disallowed, appeals from the decisions of local planning authorities on the siting of petrol filling stations.

So far, no formal guidance has been given to local planning authorities on this subject. I do not know how many consents were granted by local planning authorities. In the 12 months ended 31st March last, 61 appeals were allowed and 151 dismissed.

Does my right hon. Friend find that there is a wide divergence in the practice of local planning authorities? Has he noticed that the rash of new petrol stations is more obvious in some districts than in others, and will he have another look at the whole problem?

I think that there has been, perhaps, a keener competition between petrol firms lately, and I will certainly consider whether it would be useful and appropriate for me to give some guidance on this matter.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made in dealing with the stench arising from the pollution of the River Thames.

I would refer the hon. Member to my full letter to him on this subject dated 11th April, 1956.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people who are deeply affected by this problem are very grateful for the excellent work being carried out by the Water Pollution Research Laboratory at Stevenage, under Dr. Southgate, and also by the Pippard Committee, and that they are hoping that when researches have shown what is really wrong, the job of putting it right will not be delayed?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the Middlesex Development Plan.

Subject to certain modifications, I have now approved the County of Middlesex Development Plan.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to the authorities concerned, and that the care with which he has examined these proposals is much appreciated?

I am only sorry that they have had to wait so long for this satisfaction.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the financial difficulties in developing expanded towns, he will designate further sites for new towns.

Not at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the leader of the Conservative Party in the London County Council has called for a large expansion in the new towns programme as the only way of dealing with the overspill problem of London? Will not the Minister take advice from such a knowledgeable quarter and learn something about the job?

If the hon. Member had been listening to an earlier Question he would have heard reference made to a deputation which I am shortly to receive upon this subject, and which includes representatives from the London County Council.

Seeing that it was possible, with all the difficulties of post-war development, for 14 new towns to be started between 1946 and 1950, how can the Government explain the fact that since 1951 they have not started a single new town?

If fewer new towns had been started earlier there would have been a bigger case for starting mare now.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what mileage of the north and south Cornish coastal footpaths, respectively, is now available for public use; what mileage in each case remains to be secured; and when the whole is expected to become available.

Public rights of way exist over 98 miles of the north coast route and 92 of the south coast route; they remain to be created over 37 and 41 miles respectively. Both routes are for the most part open to the public, even where no legal rights yet exist. The local authorities are negotiating with the many land owners concerned, and I cannot say when the negotiations will be concluded.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the sixth Annual Report of the National Parks Commission, for the year ended 30th September, 1955, states that:

"During the year little progress has been made"?

Will the Parliamentary Secretary do what he can to stimulate those concerned to get the job done quickly?

Local authorities are aware of the importance of this matter, but even on a short length of path a number of agreements very often have to be negotiated, and that necessarily takes time.

Is not it a fact that neither private owner nor public authority has any legal sanction to stop people walking round their own coast? Is that not so? If so, why does this situation arise at all? Is it not because some people have infringed the rights of the rest?

Then it is very curious that a provision to that effect was made by the Labour Government in the 1949 Act.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now propose to President Eisenhower, Marshal Bulganin, and M. Mollet that the Anglo-French proposals for the limitation and eventual abolition of hydrogen bomb tests should be immediately discussed by representatives of the great Powers.

As I have already informed the House, the Anglo-French proposals for the limitation and eventual abolition of nuclear weapons tests, which cover hydrogen bombs as well as other types of nuclear weapons, will no doubt be considered in the Disarmament Commission which is due to meet at the United Nations Headquarters early next month. As I said on 7th June, the Disarmament Commission seems to me to be the best place to discuss this business.

Is the Prime Minister not aware that a special initiative to bring these tests under international control would be almost universally welcomed? Is not this a special matter, upon which international control might be swiftly established, thereby avoiding the colossal wastage and potential dangers of further tests? Will not the Prime Minister therefore treat this question as one requiring special initiative?

It is—and that is why we put forward our Anglo-French proposals. I agree with the hon. Member to that extent. On the other hand, the Commission which is to discuss this matter early next month is a very representative one, including all the main Powers concerned with these weapons, and I really think that we should give them a chance to do it. I doubt whether any special initiative would produce results.

I am not in disagreement with the Prime Minister in regard to his proposal that this matter should be discussed by the Disarmament Commission, but his phrase that it "will no doubt be discussed" suggests that there is some doubt about the matter. Will he make plain that the British Government will propose that it should be discussed by the Disarmament Commission?

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that. I put in those words because it does not lie with us to tell the other members what to do. We are, in fact, proposing that it should be discussed.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will institute a survey to prepare estimates of the probable housing and factory development in coming years with the consequently increasing demands for electricity, water and other services and to ensure that these are foreseen and provided for in step with demand.

I have considered the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. However, it is the practice for the authorities responsible for providing these services to make their own estimates; and I do not think that a separate survey of the kind proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would be helpful.

Is the Prime Minister aware that civil engineers who have been studying this matter are apprehensive about future prospects unless water is saved by re-use in industry and not allowed to run to waste as fresh water? There is a great danger that if provision is not made in time a drought may bring disaster upon certain of our industries and our agriculture.

I am quite ready to receive any representations which the right hon. Gentleman has to make. I have made inquiries, and I am told that in Scotland—which I understand he has particularly in mind—all the water undertakings are local authorities or combinations of local authorities, and we must presume that they are aware of the implications of the proposals for development in their areas.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the nation is living beyond its means, and is consuming more than it is producing and thereby causing inflation and making the export of our manufactures more difficult, he will introduce legislation to prohibit any increase in wages and salaries except for longer hours and/or greater production, the increase in any dividends, and the issue of any bonus shares, and instruct the Ministers concerned that there shall be no increase in welfare service payments, until such time as price stability has been achieved, and our exports, including invisibles, are sufficient to pay for our imports.

asked the Prime Minister what advice he gave to employers' representatives when he met them recently on the attitude they should adopt to present and future wage claims.

asked the Prime Minister if, in the course of the present discussions with the leaders of trades unions, nationalised industries and private employers, he will seek agreement on limitation or reduction of dividends and price stabilisation, in the same way as the Government have already sought agreement on wage restraint.

As I explained in my Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on 27th March, the object of our talks has been to review the national economy and to emphasise the need to keep down prices. We have not sought to make formal arrangements or to obtain formal assurances, and we do not contemplate legislation. In all our discussions with employers and the leaders of the trade unions, we have been primarily concerned to put before the parties any information at our command and to discuss with them our view and theirs of the national interest.

In view of the fact that all sections of the community would benefit from price stability, does not my right hon. Friend think that leaders on both sides of industry would accept legislation to ensure that—even if it meant a temporary sacrifice on the part of the whole community?

In a free society, I do not think that the fixing of prices and wages by legislation is the right solution. We have tried to put our view of the national interest before those whom we have met—and, I think, with some results. I believe that the right way to proceed is by agreement and discussion.

But the Prime Minister has not begun to answer Question No. 48, which he said he was answering. Will he say whether—as is widely believed in the country, and widely reported in the Press —one purpose of this meeting was to advise private employers not to accept proposals for increased wages? Will the right hon. Gentleman and his Government keep absolutely clear of any proposals which are likely to lead to widespread industrial strife?

The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have read the statement which was issued after our discussion. It represents the discussion with the employers. The other statements about the discussions with other branches of industry represent those discussions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is quite unreasonable to expect trade unions to accept this rather vague attempt to tackle the problem unless he makes positive suggestions for controlling dividends and prices? If he does not do that, how can he expect millions of people, who see their cost of living rising, to decide not to press for more wages?

I think that the majority of the House will agree that this is not a matter which can be handled by legislation, and if it is not to be handled by legislation it must be handled by discussion and agreement with those principally concerned. That is what we have been trying to do, not, I think, entirely without some measure of success. Anyway, that is the way one works in a free society, and that is the way we are going on.

In view of the widespread public interest in this matter and the great economic importance of it, will the right hon. Gentleman not say whether he did give any advice to the employers about wage claims, and, if so, what advice?

I am certainly not going at all beyond the public statement which was made, which dealt fully and fairly with our discussions with the employers, or beyond the other statements about the discussions whether with trade unions or employers. They were full statements. If anybody chooses to put a gloss on them, that is his business. I stand by the public statements.

Are we, therefore, to assume from the Prime Minister's reply that these discussions will continue, and that, in effect, the Government are now conducting a series of negotiations with both sides of industry? If so, would the Prime Minister give some indication to the House of the proposals which it is suggested the Government should put forward in this matter?

I have said, and I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, that we have had a series of discussions with both sides of industry and the nationalised industries. These will continue. I think they have already brought some benefit in an understanding of the importance of stabilising prices. I said to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) only that the statements in respect of those discussions have been full and fair, and agreed to by both sides, and I must ask the House to accept their sincerity as statements of what occurred.

rose—

Order. It is past half past three o'clock.

I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, answer Question No. 55. I have been considering whether sufficient action is being taken to protect the beauties and amenities of our countryside and towns from being spoilt by unsightly outdoor advertisements. Thanks to the co-operation of all concerned, an appreciable improvement has been evident in recent years. However, I am sure that much more could and should be done to secure the removal of incongruous hoardings and signs. I have particularly in mind the rural areas and country towns, as well as streets of special architectural interest or civic importance in the cities.

Local planning authorities already possess the necessary powers under the Advertisement Control Regulations and, with some further encouragement from the Government, most of them would, I believe, be glad to make fuller use of them. At the same time, there may be a case for relaxing somewhat the present detailed control in certain localities, where a concentrated display of advertisements is unobjectionable.

I intend, as soon as possible, to issue further guidance to planning authorities on this whole problem, but, before doing so, I propose to have consultations with the local authority associations and representatives of the advertising trade and other interests concerned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that all dwellers in rural areas and ancient cities, and all those who visit them for pleasure or for business, will welcome his statement? Is he further aware that if in our crowded island the people are to be able to enjoy all the amenities of our country much more vigorous exercise of these powers is necessary?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The beauties of England belong to all, and nobody has a right to destroy them.

While agreeing with the general spirit of what the Minister has just said, may I ask whether he can make some special arrangements under which we can retain for historical purposes those hoardings on which it was said that the Tories would mend the hole in the housewives' purse?

I dare say that could be arranged, on condition of fair shares with some of the posters put up by the party opposite.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are a number of dreary streets where tasteful advertising can somewhat brighten the prospect, and also that the advertising of industrial products is still of considerable importance to the trade of this country?

I can assure my hon. Friend that all relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman try to make sure that when the new motorways are built there will be, as far as possible, prohibition of roadside advertising, for that would be an enormous advance, such as is being made on the Continent?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of the rural districts of Norfolk will be delighted to hear that the attentions of his Ministry are to be confined—more or less confined, I hope —to cities rather than the rural areas— [HON. MEMBERS: "No, the other way round."]—as my right hon. Friend has just said, where there has been the utmost nonsense going on ever since the Act was passed?

What does my hon. Friend mean? He evidently has not understood the Answer which I gave, which is that the attentions of my Ministry will, in the first place, be directed to securing the removal of unsightly hoardings in the rural areas.

Will my right hon. Friend look up the correspondence which has taken place about, for instance, the moving under the Act of a clock six inches downwards because it was said to be six inches too high, and all that sort of nonsense which has gone on?