asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Government's decision to accept the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on the pay of Higher Civil Servants, it is now proposed to increase the pensions of those higher civil servants who retired after 31st December, 1947, and who have received no benefit under the Pension Increase Acts.

No, Sir.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider this question, bearing in mind the fall in the standard of living which some of these people have suffered since the date I mentioned, and, secondly, because the main reason advanced for excluding them has now largely disappeared?

I appreciate the arguments which my hon. Friend has in mind, but it was necessary to make a judgment as to the extent to which we could ask taxpayers to assist the relatively well-off classes of these pensioners. However, I will bear the point in mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals were made during his recent talks in London with M. Faure for a definition of the attitude of the United Kingdom Government towards the problem of associating Ghana and Nigeria with the European Common Market.

These talks covered a wide range of topics and were exploratory in character. It would not be right for me to add to what has already been said by my right hon. Friend the Economic Secretary in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on 23rd May. Our special responsibility for Nigeria and other Colonies does not, of course, extend to Ghana, a fully independent member of the Commonwealth.

Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer, may I ask him to bear in mind the very serious difficulties that would arise for both these countries competing against the overseas territories of other countries who are members of the European Common Market if they were allowed to bring in their goods Customs Duty free?

I have these matters very well in mind, and I think it is right that I should hold these discussions in various quarters in order to clarify them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state how much of the advance debt repayment and other moneys agreed to be made available by the West German Government to the United Kingdom under the Anglo-German Financial Agreement of February, 1957, has been paid and entered into the reserves; and if he will make a statement as to the dates at which payments are to be expected.

The Financial Agreements recommended by the Anglo-German Economic Committee to their respective Governments last March were signed on 7th June. The Agreements are subject to ratification by the Federal Parliament.

Do I understand from that Answer that when the deposit of £75 million is entered into in this country it will then be transferred across the exchanges and will, to that extent, influence the gold and dollar reserves? Secondly, are we also to take the Answer to be a denial of statements in certain City columns last week to the effect that some of this money was being virtually transferred through the ordinary mechanism of the exchange market at a time when exchange rates were peculiarly favourable to Germany?

When the £75 million is transferred, it will move across the exchanges. That is the answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary. The answer to the second part is that if any money has been put in it cannot have been put in under this Agreement, which has not been ratified, but there may have been transfers on a private basis between the banks.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the present position resulting from Government policies in the gilt-edged market.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to arrest the decline in British Government securities in view of the adverse effect of the continued fall on the sterling area.

I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) on 30th May.

But has not the right hon. Gentleman seen a statement in, I think, the Financial Times that British Government credit now is lower than at any time for 140 or 150 years? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that it has been authoritatively stated elsewhere that something like three-quarters of the transactions of the gilt-edged market are merely tax fiddles arising out of cum-and ex-dividend dealings? In view of this, will the Chancellor look at the whole question again and not put off a decision until the receipt of the Radcliffe Report, perhaps two years hence?

I have read a great many comments in the Financial Times and other newspapers about the gilt-edged market, but it is only one factor in our economic position, and I do not think it would be helpful if I began to forecast movements in that market.

Would my right hon. Friend say if the attack on the liquid reserves of the banks, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and The Times today, has any relevance at all to the situation?

That is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman.

Is the Chancellor really indifferent to a situation in which Government credit stands lower in the City than at any time in living memory?

I do not say that I am indifferent to any of the many factors in the economic situation, but my reply to the Question was that I do not think it really helps matters for any Chancellor to start forecasting events in the gilt-edged market.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what purpose Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are still retaining bank guarantee bonds in respect of the theatrical Entertainments Duty until May, 1958.

The Customs retain these for a period to enable them to satisfy themselves that no further liability is likely to arise under them.

Since all liabilities are settled week by week and duty has now been abolished—thanks to the Chancellor accepting the advice of the Labour Party which we have been advocating for some time—will the Chancellor tell the Customs and Excise to stop this rather pedantic holding of an out-of-date certificate of warranty given by the banks?

I understand that some of these obligations have not been discharged, but if the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, I shall do what I can to help.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what prior consultation was held by the International Monetary Fund with Her Majesty's Government as a member of the Fund before including in a recent official report an indication that Britain was gradually approaching the position where it could join the general move towards full currency convertibility; and if he will make a statement on the position.

I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the Eighth Annual Report on Exchange Restrictions. This was approved by Her Majesty's Government and, in my view, presents a useful summary of the present position. Progress has been made and continues to be made by the United Kingdom in the liberalisation of trade and payments. On the pre-conditions for sterling convertibility, I have nothing to add to the statements made by my predecessors.

Can the Chancellor say whether there is any truth in the statement that we are nearer to convertibility than, say, twelve months ago?

I think my hon. Friend reads a rather romantic connotation into this. It was put on a rather pedestrian level.

Will the Chancellor be warned by the grim fate of the Lord Privy Seal two years ago this month, when some apparently careless remarks made by him in Paris led to a very serious run against sterling? Will he make plain that he intends no change in the exchange rate of sterling, or has he any intention of moving further towards dollar convertibility?

I think I have made it plain that I have nothing to add to the statement concerning the pre-conditions for convertibility.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the loss over the last ten years in death duties which would otherwise have been payable through bequests and transfers of property to the National Trust.

I regret this information is not available.

While no doubt substantial benefits accrue to the nation from these bequests, is the Chancellor consulted before the transfer is made, and is he made acquainted with the general transactions of the National Trust? Is he aware that it is almost impossible to have a Question affecting the National Trust accepted at the Table and that I had to have recourse to this Question in order to gain some information about the transactions of the National Trust?

If the right hon. Gentleman is in any difficulty of that kind, I shall try to meet him, and if he has any questions, whether or not they are acceptable at the Table, I shall try to answer them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied that all the joint stock banks have honoured in spirit as well as in word the Bank of England's request, conveyed as an instrument of Government policy, that they should not increase their lendings to hire-purchase finance companies; and if he will make a statement.

The credit policy of the banks is not governed by detailed requests from the authorities. In my Budget statement of 9th April, I recorded the bankers' assurance that they will continue to maintain a restrictive attitude towards advances and will be particularly critical towards advances for the less essential purposes. I have no doubt that the bankers have taken full account of their assurance to me in deciding their attitude towards hire-purchase finance. But I am keeping a close watch on this and all other aspects of credit control.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to believe that this question is not so romantic? Would he please look into the position of the Commercial Bank of Scotland? Is he aware that in 1954 it purchased a hire-purchase finance corporation and is believed to have been pumping large amounts of money through it? Will he look into that and see how inflationary that is in the economy?

I shall certainly consider the particular point my hon. Friend has put to me, because I can assure him that I intend and hope that the assurances which were given to me in April last shall be fully and adequately carried out.

Does the Chancellor feel that the joint stock banks are going to be more compliant or less compliant with Government policy now that the Marquess of Salisbury has returned to his duties as a bank director?

I am sure he will be of very great assistance to the Westminster Bank.

In case there is any misunderstanding, will the Chancellor make it quite clear that the credit and reliability of Scottish banks is as sound as ever it was?

I think it is hardly necessary for me to pay tribute to the credit of Scottish banks.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Spelthorne has banked with the Commercial Bank of Scotland for more than thirty years and that it is a very honourable institution?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which public companies Her Majesty's Government holds shares; what is the extent of these holdings; and to what extent it is his intention to increase the shares thus held.

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of these holdings. I cannot forecast what changes in any of the holdings there may be in the future.

Whilst not asking the Chancellor to anticipate the programme of the next Government, may I ask if he will not agree that these constitute valuable precedents? Will he consider applying the principle, say, to the motor industry, or does he regard the prototype of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company as being too Socialistic to serve as an example?

I should have thought it a most inept procedure to add to all our present difficulties by trying to start investing right, left and centre in a lot of unspecified bits of British industry.

Does not the Chancellor think that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was the pioneer in this respect?

There is no objection to the investments which have been made in the past, no doubt for very special reasons in particular circumstances, but I am asked whether this should be adopted as a widespread and general policy and I must say that I should have thought it would have been a most unwise procedure.

If the Chancellor wishes for information about shares in industrial undertakings, will he apply to Transport House?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what special action he is contemplating to help those living on small fixed incomes to meet increases in the cost of coal and rents.

The Finance Bill contains several provisions which will benefit those living on small fixed incomes.

Whilst certainly expressing my appreciation of what the Chancellor has done, may I ask if he is aware that it touches only a very small fringe? Since the introduction of the Finance Bill, we have had an increase in the price of coal and, presumably, of gas, electricity and transport—

That is exactly what I said yesterday.

—and all rents of controlled houses? What does my right hon. Friend now intend to do? Is he looking into the matter? I believe he has the plight of small fixed income groups very much at heart.

I understand that my hon. Friend has Questions on a number of these points put down to my right hon. Friends, and I will not anticipate their replies.

Does not the Chancellor realise that the people with the smallest fixed incomes who are hardest hit are old-age pensioners? What is he going to do to alleviate their sad loss?

That raises a somewhat different question—

Not at all.

I was answering about what I had done, and, as I say, the Finance Bill does contain a number of provisions which are helpful in this respect.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the concern in parts of the county of Radnor at the decision made to close the Rating Valuation Office in Llandrindod Wells; whether he will reconsider his decision; and what suggestions he has for members of the public to seek advice and information when there are no public transport services available to Newtown.

The office has been closed in the interests of economy and efficiency, and I do not think it should be reopened. The work is in any case largely carried on by correspondence and, where necessary, the valuers concerned will arrange to meet members of the public in their own localities.

Will the Chancellor have a look at this again, because the nearest office is 28 to 30 miles away and it is impossible for people to get to that place except by means of public transport?

Until recently there have been only two callers a day, and it is anticipated that that may well drop to one a day, or fewer. To keep the office open two clerks and a typist are required and if there is to be a reality in Government economy we must close down this office.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the £698 million tobacco revenue estimated for 1957–58 will come from cigarettes; and what alternative taxes he has in mind should the lung cancer scare cause cigarette smoking to be eliminated.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what sum he now estimates Tobacco Duty will yield in the current fiscal year; and having regard to the implications for the revenue of the association between lung cancer and smoking, whether he will now make a statement upon the future of the Tobacco Duty;

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount he estimates that the revenue from the Tobacco Duty will fall during the current financial year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on revenue of the Government findings on the relation between smoking and lung cancer.

About 90 per cent. of the estimated yield of Tobacco Duty for the current year relates to cigarettes. I cannot forecast the effect on the revenue of any reduction in smoking consequent upon the Government's decision to draw attention to the Medical Research Council's report on the association between smoking and cancer of the lung. The cost to the Exchequer of publicity by health and education authorities cannot be estimated at this stage.

In view of the fact that the revenue from tobacco pays for the National Health Service, the family allowances and more pensions, must we not face the fact that if the Chancellor's right hon. Friend the Minister of Health succeeds in his policy some alternative source of revenue should be found?

We may always at various time have to look for alternate sources of revenue, but we do not want to rush into additional taxation.

In view of the doubts which have been expressed about the Government's wholeheartedness in the matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—yes—will the Chancellor say whether he still stands by or now recants the statement he made at Barnstaple in February: "We at the Treasury do not want too many people to stop smoking"?

That is a perfectly fair point. That remark was made before the General Medical Council reported, and it was a reference to the various sources of revenue of the kind which can be occasionally made in general comment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Having regard to the purity and high moral character of all policies associated with my right hon. Friend, will he give the House a firm undertaking that in his future policy he will be no party to reinforcing the no-smoking campaign of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health by a further fiscal impost on the remaining tobacco smokers?

I do not want to anticipate my next Budget.

Should the Chancellor not be careful of these romantic speeches, whether at Barnstaple or elsewhere, and would not a capital gains tax be an excellent substitute for this tax and, no doubt, have the support of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne)?

If the right hon. Gentleman has in mind as part of his policy the raising of £700 million a year by a capital gains tax, he would make a considerable mess of the economy.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times the Capital Issues Committee has rejected proposals to finance the construction of single tankers by loans from the clearing banks since he requested the Capital Issues Committee to restrict long term bank loans on 9th April, 1957.

Once, Sir, involving one vessel.

Is the Chancellor aware that there have been widespread reports that twenty such applications have been rejected and that we are glad he is sure that this is not true?

I am glad that the hon. Member and I have managed to clear it up.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate number of farthings in circulation; when they were last minted; and in what numbers.

It is estimated that 225 million farthings are in circulation. They were last minted in February, 1956, when minting was at a rate sufficient to meet a current demand from the banks varying between 120,000 and 200,000 per week.

Will not the Chancellor withdraw these unnecessary coins?

The Mint is merely the servant of the public and gives the public what it wants.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for the Inland Revenue to accept in future payment of Estate Duty in British Government securities at par or the price of issue.

This facility is part of the terms of issue of 4 per cent. Victory Bonds and 4 per cent. Funding Loan 1960–90 and is, therefore, available already to investors in these securities. It is not attached to any other description of Government stock at present on issue. It was criticised by the Colwyn Committee in their Report of 1927. I believe that their criticisms hold good today. But merits apart, I cannot consider any proposal to vary the issue terms of outstanding Government securities.

Does my right hon. Friend not think that this facility, if extended to other Government securities, would have a steadying effect on gilt-edged, would give confidence in those securities and would be an encouragement to savings?

Since my hon. Friend has asked me, I must say that I can find no solid body of advice which will tell me in that sense.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the purchasing power of the £ sterling at the latest known date, taking it as 20s. in October, 1951; and if he will give an estimate of the extent to which it is likely to be affected by increased rents, coal prices, and other costs now pending.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the purchasing value of the £ sterling on 1st July, 1957, compared with 1st October, 1951, using as the basis the £ sterling having a purchasing value of 20s. on the latter date and allowing for the depreciation of the £ sterling on the basis of the Index of Retail Prices since 1st October, 1951.

On the basis of the Index of Retail Prices, 16s. 1d. in May, 1957. The Index is not yet available for June or July, and I cannot estimate the effects of changes in prices during those months or likely to occur in the future.

Is the Chancellor bearing in mind the tests laid down by his own party at the last General Election to the effect that the Government will be judged according to the effect of their policy on prices and the value of the £?

Not for that reason, because I rule out these electoral matters, but in the interest of the economy, I urge hon. Members on both sides not to press for expenditure, to encourage economy and not to criticise the credit squeeze.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the recent alterations in the national status of the Suez Canal Company affect the position of the officially nominated British directors; whether he is satisfied that it is still advisable to have retired civil servants as the British Government's representatives; and whether he will consider appointing businessmen with a knewledge of the new interests the Canal Company is about to develop.

Their position remains unaffected. When any vacancies have to be filled the Government will naturally bear in mind the changed circumstances and interests of the Company.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he has considered the report of the committee set up by the British Government in the year 1924 to consider certain questions relating to the 39 pictures bequeathed under the will and codicil of the late Sir Hugh Lane; if he is aware that the committee found, as a fact, that Sir Hugh Lane, in signing the codicil of 3rd February, 1915, thought he was making a legal disposition; that the expressed intention of that legal disposition was that the 39 pictures should go to the Dublin Art Gallery; and if he will take steps to implement that intention by sending the 39 pictures back to Dublin.

I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to my predecessor's reply to the debate on an Amendment to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Bill on 5th November, 1954.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this finding of fact dishonours the testator and dishonours the Government, because they refuse to implement his intention, and that it is an act of unscrupulous dishonesty on the part of the Government—

On a point of order. This last supplementary question contained the words "dishonourable" as applicable to members of the present Administration and "dishonesty". Are not those words completely out of order, Mr. Speaker?

They are very undesirable, but it has always been the rule in this House that one can apply abusive words to the Government or to the party opposite to an extent which would not for one moment be permitted if directed to any particular Minister or hon. Member. It is, however, quite undesirable that such language should be used in a supplementary question.

I used the words "unscrupulous dishonesty" as applicable to the Government and as a statement of fact and not as terms of abuse.

The hon. and learned Member does not seem to be improving the situation in any way. I would remind him that, quite apart from the use of language in debate, there are particular rules regarding the language that can be used in Questions. The purpose of Questions is not to abuse the other side but to try to extract information. I would hold such language to be out of order in a Question.

In my submission, Mr. Speaker, I am not abusing, I am making a statement of fact, and the two words I used are, I suggest, Parliamentary language. They are statements of fact. The Government, in refusing to implement—

Order. The hon. and learned Member might be able to say all that in a debate, but it is out of order in a Question and he should not do it. What I said about the wide spread of the hon. and learned Member's accusation related to many Governments besides the present one, and there is nobody, therefore, to whom I can ask him to apologise, but he should not use that language in a Question.

In deference to what you have said, Mr. Speaker, may I continue my supplementary question and leave out the words to which you object? Is the Minister aware that in refusing to implement the expressed intention of the testator, as found by a committee of this House, the Government are thereby—

Order. That is all debate; it is not a question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was in the middle of my supplementary question when I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and did not complete my sentence. I am willing to leave out the words to which you object.

I heard the hon. and learned Member's supplementary question, and I have told him that that is all a matter of debate. It is not a matter for question.

May I put—

No. The hon. Member ought to bring it up on some suitable occasion when he has freedom of debate and not when he is restricted by the rules of Question Time.

May I put my supplementary question?

Order. I have listened to the hon. Member—

Why rule out a supplementary—

Order.

Mr. Speaker, I do appeal to you. May I say, with the greatest respect, that it is very hard to refuse me leave to put a supplementary question. I have not completed my supplementary question.

I called the hon. and learned Member to put a supplementary question, but he abused the opportunity.

Will you now allow me, Mr. Speaker—

No. Mr. James Harrison.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will arrange for a Government scientific investigation into the possibilities of devising a formula to release the congealed filth floating on waterways in the form of scum from the growing use of synthetic detergents.

Scum formation on rivers, like the foaming associated with it, is part of a much wider problem which is already being considered by the Standing Technical Committee on Synthetic Detergents.

If the Minister does accept the fact that this nuisance is a matter of substantial importance in dealing with the pollution of our rivers, will he treat this part of the problem as a separate issue and proceed faster with his investigations in finding a cure than would be the case if he were to deal with it in conjunction with a lot of other matters?

If the hon. Member will consider the matter, he will see that it is probably better to concentrate on a radical cure than to try to treat the symptoms. But, of course, all that is within the discretion of the technical committee to judge, and there is nothing to debar it from producing an interim report.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what scientific evidence he possesses upon which is based the statement that the amount of pollution of the rivers of England and Wales is decreasing.

The statement was based on the information coming to my Department from a variety of sources, and, in particular, from the annual reports of river boards.

Is the Minister aware that his statement made last week that pollution has been declining has been laughed to scorn by every local government man I have met, particularly in the Midlands, and does he appreciate that his view is certainly not the view of the Severn Catchment Board, and that a leading local authority, a public health authority, in the Midlands, has advised Warwickshire school teachers not to allow children to bathe in the River Avon? Does the Minister realise that that is the position in the country?

I founded my statement partly on the annual reports of the river boards which are laid before this House. It is quite true that four of the river boards, including the Severn River Board, reported a worsening condition; but sixteen river boards reported an improvement.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will advise all local authorities to make public all lists of designated houses of historical or architectural interest in their areas in whatever way may be most appropriate.

The lists compiled under Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, are open to public inspection at local authority offices. Copies are sent to the local Press, as well as to organisations interested in old buildings. I hope that local authorities will do what they can to publicise the lists in other ways.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will establish a joint water board for the whole of the Wolverhampton area of supply on which all local authorities in the area can be represented.

I have given notice of a proposal to make an order under Section 9 (2) of the Water Act, 1945, providing for the compulsory transfer of the water undertaking of the Bilston Corporation to the Wolverhampton Corporation. Objections to this proposal have been received from a number of local authorities to the effect than any order that is made should provide for a joint board as suggested in the hon. Member's Question. The proposed order will be the subject of a public inquiry, and meanwhile it would be wrong for me to comment.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will state the results of the representations made by him to water undertakings in England and Wales to build up stronger administrative units in the water industry by regrouping.

Since the issue of Circular 52/56 last September, five orders for voluntary amalgamation of water undertakings in England have been made and another four orders are before me awaiting public inquiry. I have made three draft compulsory orders; none of these has yet been confirmed. Well over half the water undertakings in England are now concerned in discussions on regrouping.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what reply he proposes to send to the letters from the Dulverton Rural District Council dated 6th June relative to the proposal to augment the existing water supply in the parish of Skilgate; and if he will authorise the work to proceed as quickly as possible having regard to the inconvenience and hardship currently being suffered by the inhabitants of Skilgate due to the inadequacy of the present supply for normal needs.

A reply was sent to the rural district council on 27th June informing them that a local investigation of their proposal will take place as soon as arrangements can be made. I will consider the matter further as soon as I have received my inspector's report.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, in view of the great local concern about the rationing of water in Skilgate and anxiety to get the scheme through as quickly as possible, may I ask if he will do his best to see that the visit and report of the inspector are expedited, as well as the right hon. Gentleman's own decision thereafter?

Yes, certainly, Sir.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) what steps he will now take to save the St. James's Theatre from destruction in view of the decision of the London County Council to grant planning permission for development of the site;

Permission in principle to build offices on this site was given by the London County Council in 1954, and a permission in detail was given by them last month for a similar purpose. The revocation of either of these permissions would be likely to involve the council in the payment of a large sum in compensation, and they are not prepared to take such a step. These being the facts, I do not consider I should be justified in intervening.

Has not the Minister got power under Section 100 of the Town and Country Planning Act to make an order revoking the planning permission? Does his refusal to do so mean that he is totally unconcerned about the loss of one of the last two Georgian theatres in London?

No, I am not at all unconcerned. To use the phrase of my predecessor, this is a matter which slipped through the net; but, having given it my most careful consideration, I am bound to agree with the London County Council that it would not be right to revoke the permission that has already been given, bearing in mind that that would cast a very heavy financial burden on public funds.

Will the Minister have yet another look at this? While one does not want in any way to reduce the powers of the London County Council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—surely he does not want the whole parish of St. James's to suffer the same fate as Berkeley Square? Already some wretched American film company has put up a most disgraceful building in St. James's Street, and the whole process is continuing.

I cannot discuss the whole policy of the London County Council planning authority on this Question. The fact is that there would be no possibility of demolishing the theatre if the theatrical interests which own it did not take some action about selling it. The London County Council used its best endeavours in considering what should be done in the circumstances and took the view, which I share, that inasmuch as planning permission was given three years ago, it would not be right to call upon the taxpayers and the ratepayers to make a very heavy contribution for the revocation of that permission.

While not questioning the right of my hon. Friends to raise this matter in the House within the rules of order, may I ask whether the Minister will recognise that the London County Council is likely, as a great London authority, to keep in mind the true interests of London, artistically and otherwise? Is it not better that it should decide these matters if possible, rather than that the Minister should jump in and reverse the decision of the elected local authority? Has the L.C.C. not got to keep in mind the material consideration of the heavy compensation in which the ratepayers would be involved?

I think there is entire agreement between the London County Council and myself on the future policy of these planning applications concerning London theatres. In this case, I have indicated that I agree with the action which, in the circumstances, the London County Council has at this moment felt it necessary to take about the St. James's Theatre.

So that those of us who are not in this secret may have a better understanding, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what sum will be involved if he were to reverse the decision? He says that the ratepayers would have to pay a lot of money. How much?

Neither I nor anybody else could make an absolutely exact estimate, but in my judgment it would be something upwards of £50,000.

I do not call that anything.

Oh.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now publish the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee into the water resources of England and Wales.

The Sub-Committee has not yet submitted its Report.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this question of water shortage is really urgent? Can he do nothing to expedite the proceedings and the Report of these Committees? They have been sitting for quite a time now and there is less water and more consumption of it.

I am very concerned about all these matters. I can assure the House that this Sub-Committee is very well aware of the need for haste, and I am certain that it has studied what was said in the debates of both Houses of Parliament recently about the need to have this information quickly.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will give a percentage estimate of the amount by which the demand for water for domestic consumption and industrial use will increase during the next ten years.

I would rather not give an estimate in advance of the Report of the Sub-Committee on the growing demand for water.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what arrangements he has made for expert advice to be available to tenants preparing lists of items of disrepair for the attention of landlords.

Such advice should not ordinarily be necessary. The tenant has to state only the things which, in his opinion, need to be put right. He does not need to specify the nature of the repairs to be carried out.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that local authority journals are expressing grave doubt about this very situation and are stating clearly that, in their view, expert advice will be needed? Is it not a matter of great doubt whether a tenant can, for example, specify dampness as an item of disrepair, because of the framing of the Act, and is it not, therefore, absolutely vital that technical advice should be available and that the right hon. Gentleman should pay for it?

No; I think that we shall get on all right, whatever anyone forecasts in local government journals. The Act is not yet in operation, and, therefore, no one can tell precisely how it is working. The form is a very simple one, and I should have thought that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred there would no difficulty whatever in the tenant filling it up. If he does make a mistake, it is always possible for him to fill in a second form.

But the right hon. Gentleman himself stressed the need for expert advice to tenants in dealing with landlords under this Act. Is he not going to take any steps to provide it?

We are now dealing with the particular matter of the disrepair form. Of course, the resources of the citizens' advice bureaux and other bodies are available to tenants concerning the Act as a whole, but in this case all that a tenant has to do is to put down on paper what is wrong with his house. If he is not aware of what is wrong, there is no expert advice which can call his attention to it.

Would it not make for economy if tenants were able to put down what was right?

Will the Minister answer the simple question, are tenants able to claim dampness as one of the defects which they can put on the list?

I do not think it is for me to interpret the Act in response to this Question. What is stated on the form is:

"I hereby give you notice that in my opinion the above-mentioned premises are in disrepair by reason of the defects set out below and that those defects ought reasonably to be remedied by you, having due regard to the age, character and locality of the premises."

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what decision he has reached regarding general public access to wild moorland in Yorkshire and Lancashire.

I have decided that a prima facie case exists for action to be taken to secure public access to certain stretches of open country in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and I have asked the county council to re-open negotiations with the landowners concerned. In Lancashire, I have decided not to confirm two access orders made by the county council, partly on grounds of danger to public water supplies.

I appreciate that at last some decisions have been reached in this matter and some partial concessions have been made, but would the Minister not agree that questions of danger to water supplies were fully met by the official committee of the Central Water Advisory Board some time ago, and will he say why he cannot accept that advice? Secondly, on the question of the Yorkshire area, where he is inviting the county council to re-open negotiations, could he not issue an order immediately, in view of the very long delay—a matter of two years—which has taken place?

These are difficult and complicated matters, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I have gone into them as carefully as I can, and I am satisfied that my present judgment is right and that I have taken the action which is reasonable.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, having regard to the association between lung cancer and atmospheric pollution, what steps he now proposes to take to expedite establishment of smoke control areas within Ministerial clean air policy.

We cannot say more than that atmospheric pollution is a possible contributory cause of lung cancer. Within the first six months of operation of the Clean Air Act, 1956, about thirty local authorities have informed me of their proposals for smoke control areas, and I know that many more authorities have plans for such areas. This is good progress. I shall give every possible assistance to local authorities in establishing smoke control areas, for my object is to implement the clean air policy as quickly as is practicable.

May I at once dissent from my right hon. Friend's suggestion that the figures he has given represent good progress? Is it not a fact that thirty local authorities out of 1,500 represent about 2 per cent. of the whole, and can my right hon. Friend say whether what I regard as a very slow rate of progress in this matter is being brought about by the reluctance of the National Coal Board and others to provide adequate supplies of suitable solid smokeless fuels at prices which the public can afford to pay?

I would remind my hon. Friend that it was the Beaver Committee itself which thought that it would take fifteen years before some 7 million dwellings in the black areas were included in smoke control areas. I think that we are making a good start. The Clean Air Council, the formation of which I announced to the House the other day, is holding its first meeting next week, and I look forward to getting valuable advice from that body.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of his Department's last annual report, he will revise planning consents given for office building in central London and refuse further applications for development which will increase the number of people travelling to work in this area.

Great efforts are being made, I understand, by the London County Council, as local planning authority, to restrict new office development in central London, but it would not be reasonable to refuse consent in every case; nor would it be generally practicable to withdraw consents already given, which in any case would give rise to compensation.

Is the Minister aware of reports that, if all the consents already given are taken up, the office population in Central London will be doubled, and how does he propose to cope with the rush-hour problem? Is it not bad enough already?

We are now encroaching on the next Question. In my view, the spread of offices in London should be checked by the restrictions which were placed upon the granting of permission by my predecessor's modifications of the development plan, and I have every reason to believe that the London County Council is greatly concerned about the matter and is seeing what it can do, for its part, as planning authority.

Can the Minister assure us that parking space is provided where permission is given for the building of these offices in Central London, either in basements or in off-street parking?

Yes, that is the policy of the planning authority.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to state the amount in square feet of new office building in central London since the war, the amount in process of building and the amount for which consents have been given; and how the final total figure of office accommodation will compare with that available before the war.

In the area which was surveyed recently by the London County Council together with the City Corporation, about 8,300,000 sq. ft. of new office floor space was constructed between 1948 and 1955. At the end of 1955, 9,900,000 sq. ft. was in course of erection, most of which has since been completed, and permissions were outstanding for the construction of 17,400,000 sq. ft. of additional office space. I regret that it is not possible to compare the new office accommodation for which permission has been given with the accommodation available in the area before the war, because the records are incomplete.

Is not the prospect of another 17 million square feet of office building in the centre of London really a formidable one and has the Minister no powers of review which would enable him to look again at this question? Surely, if the matter goes on unchecked, we shall have an impossible position in the centre of London. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also of the large number of vacancies in office blocks already completed, which seems to suggest that there has been overbuilding?

If there are vacancies in office blocks which have recently been built, I think that is the likeliest thing to bring additional building to an end. I assure the hon. Lady that the figures which I quoted referred to a date eighteen months ago. She is asking me, I think, to interfere further with the London County Council, which the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) does not want me to do. I am, in fact, in close and friendly touch with the London County Council about this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, when considering this question, that London is a very great commercial centre, that there is a perfectly reasonable and proper demand for modern office accommodation and that these requests to restrict accommodation come very strangely from the party opposite, who seem so often to be concerned about the conditions of office workers?

In view of the almost insuperable difficulties of the housing situation in Inner London, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he ought to reconsider his policy about office accommodation and that he ought also to reconsider his failure to add any new towns to those already in existence?

No. Replying to the question about offices, my predecessor, the present Minister of Defence, modified the London County Council development plan in the direction which the hon. and learned Member apparently would approve. I noted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I should like to say to all concerned that I am watching this position extremely carefully and that I want to try to find a solution with the good will of all concerned.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he proposes to take to prevent London theatres being demolished for office building, in view of their cultural value to the nation.

My only responsibilities here arise under the Town and Country Planning Acts, which relate to the right use of land or buildings. Under these Acts permission is not required for the demolition of any building unless it is covered by a building preservation order; and such an order can be made only for a building which is of special architectural or historic interest. There is no power under the Acts to preserve a theatre as such.

Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that there are now eight theatres fewer in the West End of London than there were before the war? In view of the cultural value of the living theatre to the nation, will the right hon. Gentleman watch the position very closely? Will he bear in mind that many of these valuable sites are now attracting those who seek to build offices?

Yes, Sir. I will watch the position very carefully, and the London County Council, as the planning authority, gave a similar assurance to my predecessor.

When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the cost of preserving an existing theatre, will be hear in mind that it will cost the best part of £1 million to build a new one?