asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the present relationship between the assessment of owner-occupied houses for rating purposes and for Schedule A tax; and what proposals he has for giving Income Tax relief immediately and in the future to owner-occupiers.

At present residential property is valued for rating at 1939 values. Income Tax values have been carried forward from year to year since 1936–37. On the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply last Tuesday to my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Poole (Captain Pilkington) and Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke).

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the view that it ill becomes those who advocate a property-owning democracy to tax property-owning democrats and that, although this tax is hard enough to bear at the moment, it will become penal when properties are assessed at current valuation? Will my right hon. Friend keep this matter in the forefront of his mind?

Yes, I will keep it in the forefront of my mind, but my hon. Friend, in his turn, will remember that this tax had been part of our basic tax structure for a hundred years, so it does require careful consideration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will re-examine the need for maintaining Schedule A assessment on dwelling houses up to a certain annual value; and, in such re-examination, if he will bear in mind the evidence in favour of its abolition set out in the Report of the Commission on Taxation in the Republic of Ireland, a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Edmonton.

I am bearing in mind the arguments on all sides of this question.

Does not the Chancellor agree that there is a comparison between the relief on Schedule A assessments up to a certain value and the relief which is already given to the interest on bank savings deposits and National Savings Certificates and the exemption in the case of life insurance premiums and so forth?

I think there is some substance in what the hon. Gentleman says. He will remember, of course, the considered advice of the Royal Commission on this subject, which, of course, we cannot completely disregard.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now completed his consideration of the broadening of the categories on which post-war credits are paid on hardship grounds, particularly of sickness.

As I said in reply to Questions last week, I cannot make any statement at present about further payment of post-war credits, but I have undertaken to give careful consideration to the case of the long-term sick.

Will my right hon. Friend hasten the result of his efforts, because there are a number of constituents of mine and very many people who are unable to earn because of sickness and who would be very glad if the sums due to them from the State could be paid out as quickly as possible?

I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend has said.

As quite recently we have repaid a big post-war credit to America, would not that fact reinforce the claim of some of our creditors at home?

That is rather a different matter, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to reduce the age for repayment of post war credits by another five years for both sexes; and how much this repayment would cost.

I cannot make any statement at present about the possibility of reducing the qualifying ages for payment of post-war credits. The cost of reducing the age by five years for both men and women would be £82 million.

In view of the much trumpeted prosperity of the country at present, and in view of the relatively low cost of this proposal, does not the Chancellor agree that it is high time that repayment of this national debt of honour was greatly accelerated?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the sooner we can make repayment of this debt, which has been outstanding for such a long time, the better. I am not sure I agree with him that this is a relatively unimportant sum and, of course, all the time one has to watch the inflationary consequences of excessive payments of this kind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated cost of paying post-war credits to men and women who are medically certified as being permanently incapacitated from work by reason of sickness, disease or injury.

I regret that there is not enough information on which to base an estimate.

Even if that is so, does not it present the Chancellor with the easily identifiable category for which he asks in dealing with such matters of hardship? Surely, it is intolerable that we should refuse to give this group of people permanently incapacitated by sickness, disease or injury, this small measure of amelioration which could be so easily granted.

The hon. Gentleman will have taken note of the fact that I am looking at the possibilities of assisting the chronic sick in this way. However, I am not sure that the proposal he has made would be administratively satisfactory, because I doubt if it would achieve a reasonably uniform basis, but I will bear his suggestion in mind.

Would the Chancellor consider consulting the Minister of National Insurance, since most of these classes would be covered by his Ministry, and from the records the right hon. Gentleman would be able to show the Chancellor which persons are permanently incapacitated for these reasons?

The right hon. Gentleman is right and at present I am engaged in discussions with my right hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will state the policy of the present Government in regard to Purchase Tax; (2) whether, in view of the fact that the lowest rate of Purchase Tax, namely, five per cent., now applies to all classes of clothes and furniture however costly and luxurious, he will give an assurance that he will give priority in further proposals for Purchase Tax reduction to the other categories of goods to which Purchase Tax is applicable, at 12½ per cent., 25 per cent., and 50 per cent., respectively, and which include a large range of goods now regarded as household necessities.

It is the policy of the Government not to give any indication in advance as to possible changes in Purchase Tax.

Is it not the fact that my right hon. Friend has recently been making provocative speeches exhorting manufacturers to reduce their prices? Should he not himself practise what he preaches, set a good example, reduce Purchase Tax with a view to its ultimate abolition at an early date, and thereby make a massive contribution to reducing prices in the shops for housewives and others?

I would describe my speeches as thought-provoking rather than provocative, but, with that reservation, I agree that my hon. Friend's Question is relevant. However, I consider that I have not a bad record in this respect. In the last two Budgets I have recommended to Parliament, and Parliament has approved, a reduction of something like £120 million in Purchase Tax, or 20 per cent. in the rates. I would be well satisfied if price reductions approximate to that reduction.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the number of new motor car registrations during the past three-and-a-half years in Western Germany and France have in each case exceeded those in the United Kingdom and that the ability of the British motor car industry to maintain and increase exports in competition with these two countries is dominated by the need for large-scale production; and, having regard to motor car Purchase Tax being levied at rates much higher than taxation on cars levied in Western Germany and France, whether he will undertake to reduce Purchase Tax on cars, as soon as possible, and thus assist the export competitiveness of the British motor car industry.

I am, of course, well aware of the bearing of large-scale production by the motor car industry on its ability to compete in export markets and this is one of the considerations which I have to keep in mind in considering the level of the Purchase Tax. But I can give no such undertaking as my hon. Friend suggests.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the life of the last Parliament he took slow and faltering steps in the direction of the "Nabarro Plan" for Purchase Tax? Would he recall, in particular, that following the abolition of Purchase Tax on commercial vehicles there has been a big increase in sales abroad, as I recommended to him. Will not my right hon. Friend now break into a brisk trot and accelerate these reductions?

I will not speculate as to the effect on the country's economy if I were to accept the "Nabarro Plan" in toto.

Would the Chancellor consider stating his future policy towards the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)?

That would require further consideration.

Absolutely unmentionable.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the progress made in the discussions for the establishment of a European Free Trade Area both with the seven countries and the members of the Common Market.

Ministers of the seven countries of the Stockholm Group will be meeting on 19th and 20th of this month to consider a draft Convention setting up a European Free Trade Association. No discussions are in progress at the present time with the Common Market countries, but it is our hope that the Convention will be a step towards a wider agreement embracing the whole of Western Europe.

Whilst welcoming that announcement, may I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to state the broad outlines of the Convention before signing takes place, so that the House may have an idea of what is in it? Further, is the right hon. Gentleman hopeful that the steps he can now take will lead to a closer association with the Common Market countries?

As regards the first part of the supplementary question, at present there is nothing to add to the draft Convention which was published as a White Paper in July, and which is substantially the basis of the proposed Convention. As regards the second part of the supplementary question, we must first get this Free Trade Association established if we can, and then consider the best ways of setting about achieving our aim, which is a comprehensive association of the seventeen countries.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet decided whether to accept the recommendations of the Radcliffe Committee on the Working of the Monetary System for a Standing Committee, under his chairmanship, of the Treasury and Bank on monetary affairs.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make arrangements to secure the implementation of the recommendation of the Radcliffe Committee on the Working of the Monetary System that announcements as to changes in the Bank Rate should be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet decided whether to accept the recommendations of the Radcliffe Committee on the Working of the Monetary System that local authorities should have unrestricted access to the Public Works Loan Board at prevailing gilt-edged rates.

As I indicated to the House on 3rd November, I hope there will be an early opportunity for a general discussion on the Report of the Radcliffe Committee on the Working of the Monetary System. I expect to be able to announce at that time the Government's decision on these recommendations.

As the two recommendations are important, can the Chancellor assure us that he will take a definite decision on these points at least by the date of the debate?

Certainly I hope to be able to do so by the date of the debate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to taking farthings out of circulation, reducing the size of the penny, dispensing with either florins or half-crowns and introducing a coin of higher value than the half-crown.

I have noted with interest the comments on these questions made by the Deputy Master of the Royal Mint in his recent Annual Report. I have nothing at present to add.

I am sorry that the Chancellor has not decided to take any action, but even if he cannot carry out all the suggestions at once, will he at least do something about the scores of millions of farthings that are lying about, which are useless and irritating when they come to light? Will he at least reach a decision to withdraw them from circulation now?

I am very much interested in the hon. Gentleman's views on the points that have been raised and, indeed, in the views of other people too, because it is a matter on which I should be glad of the widest possible comment before reaching any decision.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider raising the prizes for holders of Premium Bonds to £10,000, to encourage the public to increase their investment.

The Government, in consultation with the National Savings Movement, continue to keep the prize structure under review, but it is far from certain that my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion would be generally welcome.

But surely my right hon. Friend will agree that few of us want the fantastic prizes offered by the pools—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—nor, indeed, would it be good for us to have them, but £10,000 would come in very handy to all of us—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—inasmuch as that sum might provide a house or a business enterprise, or both? Would he, alternatively, consider extending the number of £1,000 prizes in order to achieve practically the same result?

I will reserve judgment on the first part of the supplementary question, namely, whether I would welcome receiving the biggest prize. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point, that I am not sure that it would be for my good if I did. I should be very glad to win a £1,000 prize if that came my way. The point is that if one increased the size of the prize one would have to reduce the number of prizes, otherwise the cost of borrowing would be too great, so it is a question of finding the right balance. I think that the balance we have at present is not far wrong, but I will keep the matter under consideration.

While, like many other hon. Members, I am not entirely familiar with the scheme, will the Chancellor confirm that the odds against a holder winning a prize now are no worse than the odds against a holder winning a prize at the beginning of the scheme?

I believe that is the situation. If there has been any reduction in the chances I will notify the hon. Gentleman, but to the best of my knowledge the chances are just the same now as they were. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to hold his bonds hopefully.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the extent to which the standard of living of business executives and their customers is affected by expense account spending, with a consequent loss to the Revenue, whether he will instruct the Board of Inland Revenue to publish figures of such expenditure, on a national or sample basis, extracted from the returns made to them.

I regret that this information is not available.

Could not this information be available if appropriate efforts were made? Is the Chancellor aware that there is long-standing grave public concern on this matter, and that nobody knows the real extent of the abuse? If the Inland Revenue Department would take some effective action much could be done to resolve the situation.

I do not dissent about the importance of the question and I am considering whether there are any ways in which we can obtain better information than we are securing at present. I am looking into the alternative means of doing that. There is no difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself as to the importance of ensuring that the Inland Revenue secures the payment of revenue to which it is entitled.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will appoint a committee to review the rules for tax relief on business expenses.

I doubt whether a committee of inquiry would serve a useful purpose, but I am keeping the general question of the treatment of business expenses in regard to taxation under review.

Apart from the possibility of gain to the Revenue, would not such a committee be an admirable way of establishing how much truth there was in some of the extravagant charges which were made during the election campaign?

It is awfully easy to proliferate the appointment of committees. One question which one has to consider is whether one can collect all the relevant information to enable a judgment to be made without the process of having a committee. I am not quarrelling with my hon. Friend's suggestion that this is an important matter which justifies continuous consideration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reasons for his decision to lower his official estimate for the United Kingdom balance of payments surplus in 1958 from £455 millions to £349 millions.

The estimate of the United Kingdom's identified current surplus for 1958 has been revised to take account of fresh information, principally about dry-cargo shipping earnings. The reasons for the change were outlined in paragraphs 7 to 11 of the Introduction to the recent White Paper on the Balance of Payments (Cmnd. 861).

Does the Chancellor think that if one of his friends in the City had over-estimated his earnings by 30 per cent. and publicly corrected it only within a few minutes of the end of the meeting of shareholders, he would not have incurred criticism from the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), among others?

I am quite sure that he would. However, as I mentioned when I spoke to the House the other day, these estimates are not based on bookkeeping figures, as I hope would be the case in the instance to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. They are simply estimates. We were not satisfied that we were working on the best estimates, and over the past few years we have been trying progressively to improve them. This, I hope, is a step in the direction of achieving sounder estimates than we have used in past years. However, I am still not satisfied that we have entirely accurate figures, and so in giving this estimate we always make it clear that it is based on the best estimates which can currently be collected.

Are we to assume that in the official figures to do with the balance of payments there is liable to be a 30 per cent. error?

Not again, I hope. The point which the right hon. Gentleman made is fair enough. Therefore, we always announce the estimates as provisional estimates, and they remain, even when they have been revised, provisional estimates.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated annual cost to the revenue of exempting from Income Tax the first £200 of any income derived from pensions in the case of women at 60 years of age and of men at 65 years of age.

About £35 million a year.

In view of the quite small sum—I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me in this case—which would be involved, will the Chancellor look at the proposal, or something very much like it, very closely, because if it could be brought about it would undoubtedly bring substantial reliefs to a number of people who are living in very straitened circumstances in their old age.

Again, I think that the hon. Gentleman thinks in terms of bigger figures than I do. I think that this is an important figure. Of course, no Government have been able to consider pensions as other than income. The pensioners are given earned income relief, but, incidentally, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would help those with higher incomes more than it would those with lower incomes.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether considerations of this kind—not necessarily this specific suggestion—with regard to helping those who are living on small fixed incomes are now being looked at by him in view of the election pledge that we gave to try to help the elderly who are living on small fixed incomes?

Yes, indeed, Sir. I think that I can assure my hon. Friend that that is certainly always in our minds. My hon. Friend will agree that in the Finance Act, 1958, we took two actions which were of very definite assistance to the elderly living on small fixed incomes.

That was before the General Election.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the former Head of the European Group of the London Press Services of the Overseas Press Services of the Central Office of Information has been replaced by an information officer who has had no newspaper or news agency experience in a journalistic capacity.

This transfer of staff was made three months ago as part of a reorganisation and improvement of the Overseas Press Services.

Does my right hon. Friend think it is an improvement to replace somebody who has had journalistic experience in a post like this by somebody who has not? Is it not desirable that a post like the one in question, which has contact with the Press, should be filled by someone who has had personal experience?

I do not think the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend. The present officer is an established officer who has had ten years' journalistic experience in the Civil Service and has actually worked in the London Press Service for thirteen years. It seems to me that she is fully qualified for the work which she is doing at present.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider the claims made to him in the last Parliament by railway superannuitants for pension increases comparable to those awarded to other public service pensioners.

No, Sir. Superannuation arrangements are matters within the responsibility of the British Transport Commission.

As the British Transport Commission cannot give these veteran railwaymen the increases which other public service pensioners have received under the Chancellor's pensions increase legislation, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has now come to accept a moral obligation towards this group of public service pensioners who have had no increases to meet the rising cost of living?

I still feel that this is a matter squarely within the jurisdiction of the British Transport Commission under its statutes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most railway workers do not appreciate the subtle distinctions made by Parliament between a nationalised industry, such as the railways, and a service which is run directly, such as the Post Office, and that they regard themselves just as much public servants as postmen do?

That may be so, but, of course, in our actions we are bound by the Statutes which lay down what are the responsibilities of the various nationalised boards.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total cost of a £1,500 council house after interest has been paid for sixty years at the current rate of 5¾ per cent.; and what would be the reduction in total cost if interest rates were restored to 3¼ per cent.

On the assumption of repayment by half-yearly annuities, the total cost for a loan at 5¾ per cent. would be £5,353; this sum would be reduced by £1,934 if interest were at 3¼ per cent.

Is there not something seriously wrong when nearly three-quarters of the total cost of a house and its rent is due to interest charges?

I do not think that is necessarily so. One has to remember that the provision of capital is not merely a question of good will, and that capital will be, I should think, for the next quarter of a century at least in very short supply. If one distorts the picture by making it available on subsidised terms one is not doing a very good turn to our national economy, as hon. Members will realise if they cast their minds back some ten or twelve years.

Even if the Chancellor will not listen to my hon. Friend on this matter, will he at least listen to the unanimous recommendations of the Radcliffe Committee?

I have said that we shall be discussing that matter, I hope, with Mr. Speaker's permission, before long.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea what this means to a city like Salford, with very heavy rates, as they are at the present time, and people very badly housed? Cannot he do something about it?

I know, unfortunately, the tremendous demands for capital and what they look like when compared with the supply of capital available.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the provision of houses—after all, the Conservative Government have said that it is one of the priorities—is as important as the case which he has just put forward? Does not the Government's policy mean that thousands of people are being denied houses because the local authorities cannot face the present burden?

I am surprised at the hon. Lady raising the question of the number of houses provided when she compares the record of the past eight years with the record of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Is the Chancellor really unaware of the fact that the number of council houses built has been steadily falling for the last three or four years?

I am aware that local authority and private enterprise houses have for many years now exceeded 250,000 a year and that the provision is likely to continue on that scale. That is a figure greatly in excess of the figure achieved by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the approximate annual cost to the Exchequer of providing housing loans through the Public Works Loan Board at 3¼ per cent. instead of 5¾ per cent. on council houses now under construction; and if, in view of the housing shortage, he will consider such a step.

The approximate difference in annual cost would be £6 million, on the assumption that all local authority houses were financed by sixty-year loans from the Public Works Loan Board. I cannot agree, however, that local authorities should have the right of access to cheap loans from the Board.

Is the Chancellor aware that the raising of interest rates has caused a drastic cut, nearly a halving, in council house building programmes and has been a serious blow to families on council house waiting lists? Would not the provision of low interest rate loans be a relatively cheap affair compared, for instance, with the £45 million a year which the Chancellor gave in the last Budget to those paying Surtax?

To the best of my knowledge, the capacity of the building industry is fairly fully taken up at present.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider that if it is sound and just to provide cheap money for industrialists to build factories, it is equally just to do so to enable local authorities to build houses?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the aid which we give to certain types of house-building.

Is the Chancellor aware that a great deal of that so-called money is public credit raised by bank credit and is in no way raised from the public, so that the increased charges are paid to the banks, which provide credit for the Government, and are not necessarily recovery of Government expenditure at all, but are a subsidy to the banks?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that among my responsibilities I have to consider the total amount of credit in whatever form it is raised, whether directly by the Government, or through other channels.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to make available a substantial number of additional places in the universities for Commonwealth students in accordance with the decisions of the Commonwealth Education Conference.

It rests with the universities themselves to decide whom to admit to their courses. I am confident, however, that they will do all in their power to further the recommendations of the Oxford Conference and to place students from the Commonwealth. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has the matter under active consideration.

Is the Chancellor aware that it is highly desirable that the recommendations of the Oxford Conference should be put into effect? Does he realise that there is a shortage of places for British students in the universities? In view of the anxiety of parents and schoolmasters, is it not desirable that he or the universities should make clear to the public the considerations on which students are selected?

I agree in general with what the hon. Gentleman said. He will know that a rapid expansion in the capacity of our universities, from about 100,000 places last year to about 125,000 in the mid-1960s and about 135,000 a few years later is under way. He will know from his own experience the difficulties of expanding teaching capacity as fast as we should all like. However, I believe that the universities regard the present rate of expansion as about the most rapid which can be carried out, taking all factors into consideration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the continued difficulty which research workers using the British Museum experience as a result of the closing of the Reading Room at 5 p.m., which excludes a high proportion of intending researchers from using its resources at all; and if he will consider lengthening or otherwise adjusting the working hours so as to make its resources available to those who can work only there in the evening.

The hours of opening of the Reading Room are a matter for the British Museum trustees, who I understand have this question under consideration.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a matter which I repeatedly pressed on Treasury Ministers in the last Parliament as a very urgent matter indeed? Is it not a fact that the British Museum has for long been starved of the sort of funds which would enable it to give a proper service to the public? Cannot the Chancellor do rather better than that somewhat disappointing reply?

I did not intend my reply to be disappointing—I did not want to add to it. The responsibility lies with the trustees. I will add this, that I will give sympathetic consideration to any proposals which the trustees care to make to me on this individual point. I do not want to be drawn wider in reply to this important question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which Treasury approval was recently given for the expenditure of £9,000,000 by a London property company for the purpose of building a skyscraper building over and adjoining the Grand Central railway station in New York.

Application was made by the company for exchange control consent for the use of currency derived from the sale abroad of United Kingdom-owned foreign currency securities for the purpose of making this investment and, in accordance with normal practice, consent was given. No official exchange was made available.

In view of the grave deficiency of capital investment in both the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, is there some suggestion here that the Treasury has used its powers with some laxity?

No. I assure the hon. Member that this is absolutely in accordance with normal routine. It is a question of using switch dollars and not dollars obtained through the official exchange. The hon. Gentleman will find that that is completely in keeping with normal practice. The only concession made in this case was that the securities were not yet quoted but to be quoted. If the securities were quoted on the Stock Exchange, approval would be absolutely automatic.

Is not the Chancellor rather confusing the issue? Is it not the situation that this was British capital being exported to the United States, whether it ultimately came from the United States or not? Should not it have stayed here?

The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. This money would be the proceeds of the sale of British-owned foreign securities, and therefore no export of capital is involved.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the absence of a deficiency payment scheme, and of the big difference in financial return from one season to another, he will consider allowing the growers of soft fruit to average their profits for tax purposes over a three-year period.

I have considered proposals of this nature in the past but have not felt able to propose any change in the existing law.

When my right hon. Friend is contemplating tax changes in the next few months, will he bear in mind that the fluctuation in income of soft fruit growers, and possibly also fishermen, is far greater than any other trade experiences and that nature does not adhere to one-year accounting as the Treasury does?

I agree with the last part of what my hon. Friend said, but I do not agree that this is the only or even the extreme case of fluctuating incomes. I am not sure whether the change my hon. Friend proposes would be in the interests of those concerned—if it were spread over the average. I think that in some ways it is better to make the payment of the tax as close as one can to the earning of the income.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up an in quiry into the methods of financing the nationalised industries and dealing with their fixed charges and accumulated deficits.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Radcliffe Committee has made certain recommendations about the financing of the nationalised industries which the Government have under consideration. They have no prior charges as such, since they are wholly financed by fixed interest capital. If powers are needed to finance any deficit the Government must naturally seek them from Parliament, but I doubt the necessity for a special inquiry.

While not encouraging the Chancellor to set up any more unnecessary committees, may I ask whether he would agree that the whole situation of the financing of nationalised industries is becoming extremely unsatisfactory, that deficits are mounting up year by year, and that the system of financing capital expenditure out of a budget was meant to be a short-term measure?

I agree that the provision of finance for the nationalised industries is a formidable problem, but I think it likely that we shall be discussing it during our debate on the Radcliffe Report.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total contributions from the United Kingdom to inter national organisations concerned with assisting under-developed countries; and what proportion it is of the national income.

They were £2·3 million in 1958–59. This equalled ·01 per cent. of our national income. In addition, nearly £19 million was disbursed in 1958–59 from the United Kingdom sterling subscription to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development under loans from that institution to under-developed countries. This equalled nearly 0·1 per cent. of our national income.

Is it not the case that statements, which are occasionally made, that we directly contribute more than 1 per cent. of our national income towards help for the under-developed countries are not strictly true, although, taking account of private investment in the under-developed countries, admittedly we make a very substantial contribution?

No, Sir. Even without private investment the figure of direct assistance to the under-developed countries, counting our bilateral assistance, comes to 1 per cent. of our gross national product.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury how many civil servants retired on pensions exceeding £375 a year since the war; how many of these retired before January, 1956; and how many commutations of pensions took place during those periods.

The estimated number is 28,000 of whom 13,000 retired before January, 1956. The numbers of commutations of pensions during this period were 38 and 25 respectively.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the transfer to the Ministry of Aviation and the War Office of responsibilities formerly belonging to the Ministry of Supply, what steps have been taken to ensure that staff of the Ministry of Supply, Derby House, Liverpool, will continue to be employed in Merseyside by the Ministry of Aviation or the War Office.

Only preliminary consideration has yet been given to the detailed reorganisation of the work formerly done in the Ministry of Supply; but there is no reason to expect that any of the staff concerned will cease to be employed in the Merseyside area.

I thank the Secretary to the Treasury for that reply. Will he have regard to the anxiety felt about this matter locally and continue to keep watch on it?

Yes. I am well aware of this anxiety, but it is expected that virtually all the staff will continue to work in Derby House.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury what steps have been taken to ensure that the location of principal offices of Government Departments, with particular reference to the distribution of work formerly undertaken by the Ministry of Supply, shall take account of the desirability of providing employment in areas of relatively high unemployment.

The needs of areas of relatively high unemployment are kept well in mind whenever the location of new Government establishments has to be decided. The redistribution of the work formerly undertaken by the Ministry of Supply is not expected to involve the removal of any large blocks of staff.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) if he will make a statement giving details of the progress being made under the Clean Air Act to deal with air pollution; and how long he anticipates it will take before the Act becomes fully effective;

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs to what extent local authorities have used their powers under Section 11 of the Clean Air Act, 1956, to declare smoke control areas; by what date he expects the Act will be in full operation; whether he is satisfied that local authorities are treating this problem as a matter of urgency; whether he is satisfied with the working of the Act regarding the declaration of smokeless zones; and what proposals he has, by way of amending legislation, to ensure that the provisions of the Act relating to smoke control areas are implemented to the maximum extent possible.

The Clean Air Act is now fully operative. The effectiveness of the various measures taken under it will be cumulative. The powers given to local authorities to create smoke control areas are adequate, but my right hon. Friend would like them even more widely used. In England and Wales 104 smoke control orders were in operation at the end of October, 69 others had been confirmed, and a further 59 had been submitted for confirmation. We have been notified provisionally of yet a further 202 schemes. Smokeless zones can be established only under local Acts. Out of some 300 local authorities in the black areas, 183 have so far submitted five-year programmes.

I congratulate the Minister on achieving his ambition to speak from the Box, and I wish him well. However, is he satisfied with the progress that has been made? Is not it a fact that many local authorities are holding back largely because of the trouble involved in getting suitable smokeless fuels? What are the Government doing in this respect? When is action really to be taken against excessive diesel fumes from vehicles? I travelled from Dart-ford this afternoon and I was appalled to see some of the smoke that came from diesel vehicles.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his personal courtesy to me. Many local authorities have achieved what can only be described as satisfactory progress, bearing in mind that the Beaver Committee spoke of probably ten to fifteen years being needed to achieve clean air throughout the black areas. There are many problems in achieving clean air. Some local authorities dispute that they are in black areas. Some have concessionary coal problems. My right hon. Friend is considering all these and other reasons, and how best to achieve progress. There is no evidence that smokeless fuel is a cause of delay. As for diesel oil, that is another question.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary consult his right hon. Friend the Minister with a view to giving instructions to the Ministry that this matter should at last be treated as one of extreme urgency? Is he aware that in this country more people suffer from bronchitis through this than in any other country? Is he also aware that in the great centre of population between Stoke, Manchester and Salford there is more suffering than in any other part of the country? Is it not time that this matter was treated with the sense of urgency that it deserves?

My right hon. Friend is extremely keen on making this country free from air pollution as quickly as possible. In my short time in the Department I have found universal keenness to help to achieve this end, but local authorities have the main responsibility in this field. The hon. Gentleman will know from experience in his own area that there is much to be done by local authorities in many parts of the country.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what consideration has been given by the Clean Air Council, under Section 23 of the Clean Air Act, to the proceedings of the international Clean Air Conference held in London during October; and what action he has taken to draw to the attention of local authorities the suggestions made by other countries and the lessons to be learnt from their experience.

The full proceedings are not available yet, but my right hon. Friend is bringing to the notice of the Clean Air Council the papers presented to the Conference. Many local authorities were represented at the conference, but he will consider, with the Council, whether there is any information which might with advantage be circulated to all authorities.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what consideration has been given by the Clean Air Council to the pollution of the air by diesel exhaust fumes; what advice has been submitted by the council in this respect; and what steps he has taken to bring such advice to the attention of local authorities.

The Council still has this question under consideration.

As all who travel to the big industrial areas will admit, this is a very serious matter. Has not the time arrived for the Minister to consult the Home Secretary with a view to asking the police to take proceedings when they find that this is being done?

That is not the Question that was asked, but I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to it.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what changes are proposed in the structure and functions of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear his intentions on this subject in a statement which he authorised me to read to the Council at its last meeting. I am circulating the full text in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Steps are now being taken to reconstitute the Council in accordance with that statement.

Can the Minister say how long he intends to retain the chairmanship of the Council and when he proposes to make room for a Welshman?

I cannot say whom the new Council will select as its chairman, but I ceased to be chairman, and ceased to be a member of the Council, on 30th September.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will take steps in this Session of Parliament to amend the Housing Subsidy Act to enable local authorities to more easily build accommodation for cases other than slum clearance.

Nearly all local authorities are quite able to build houses for letting at reasonable rents without further assistance from the Exchequer, provided that they give the benefit of subsidy only to those tenants who need it, and only to the extent of their need. Special assistance is already available for authorities which cannot provide urgently needed accommodation without charging unreasonably high rents or placing an unreasonable burden on the rates.

Is the Minister aware that that Answer is complete baloney? Is he aware that in a city like Salford experience has proved that it is almost economically impossible to build houses for rent for the sick, the overcrowded, and young married couples, because of the concentration on slum clearance under the Act? Will the Minister take some steps to do something about amending what is proving to be a very difficult Act indeed?

In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I strongly advise the Salford City Council to examine carefully the rents it charges on existing houses, as has been done by many local authorities of all political colours.

If the Minister is to make any alterations at all, will they be more in the nature of speeding up the slum clearance programme, which is direly needed in many of the old industrial areas?

I am anxious to speed up the slum clearance programme. We are already clearing over 60,000 houses a year in England and Wales.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to assure the House that local authorities share his views that the financial help afforded to them is adequate to enable them to provide additional housing accommodation?

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that local authorities would never admit that they were receiving sufficient help from the Exchequer. I am quite satisfied that, either by means of revising their rents or by applying to me for the extra discretionary subsidy, local authorities can continue with the necessary house building.

Is it not a fact that at the present time the number of houses under construction by local authorities, apart from slum clearance, is their answer to his view that they have sufficient financial assistance?

If the right hon. Gentleman were familiar with the figures he would know that the number of council houses under construction at the present time is substantially higher than it was a year ago.

May I extend to the Minister an invitation to come to my constituency and to amplify the statement that he has just made?

I have visited a number of local authorities. I am always trying to extend my knowledge. I went to Salford, where this Question originated, only this summer.