asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he considers it inappropriate to include in Government contracts a condition that the private firms fulfilling them should make no inquiry into the religion of applicants for employment.

Because to do so would be to introduce questions of religious faith and conscience into commercial relations between Government Departments and industry. To do so would raise not only large questions of principle, which in my view ought not to be dealt with by a sidewind, but also immense practical difficulties.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is exactly what is happening now and that certain firms are demanding to know the religious faith of applicants for posts? Is he also aware that in areas of religious tension this causes great misgivings and—and I ask him to pay particular attention to this—that the firms involved are now prepared to consider this practice? Would he use his influence in order to end it?

That question is quite different from that on the Order Paper. It is not for me to comment on the practice concerned, but it is my view that it would not make for an easy solution, of what I agree to be a very difficult matter, to condemn those who would otherwise be employees of this firm to unemployment in order to deal with this practice.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what agreement has been reached with the Federal Government of Germany on the subject of support costs.

By the end of last month the Federal Government had completed payments of 1,200 million deutschemarks to the United Kingdom over a two-year period, principally under contracts for military procurement, and had therefore fully implemented the agreement negotiated in 1962 by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary.

I had a preliminary discussion of the question of a further agreement in this field with Dr. Dahlgruen, the Federal German Minister of Finance, during his visit to London on 16th–17th March, and I hope to visit Bonn in the near future with a view to the conclusion of a new agreement.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the purpose of meeting his opposite number from the West German Government? Was it to bring about a reduction in support costs? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we are paying about £80 million in support costs, which is far too great a burden for this country to assume? If the West German Government are not prepared to make a further contribution to support costs, why not withdraw some of our troops from Germany?

There were two purposes in my discussions with the German Minister: first, to secure that arrangements were made—and as my Answer indicates they successfully were—for the full implementation of the agreement negotiated by my right hon. Friend two years ago, and, secondly, preliminary discussions with a view to an agreement for the future.

The wider questions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are, I think, much more matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the various Surtax rates operating in 1951 which resulted in a Treasury revenue of £124,900,000 in 1951; what were the Surtax rates in 1963 which gave a return to the Treasury of revenue of £174,100,000; and what was the amount of income liable to Surtax in 1951, and in 1963, respectively.

As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Do not the figures show that, proportionately, the wealthier sections of the population have benefited much more than the poorer sections with regard to the payment of Income Tax?

When the hon. Gentleman studies the somewhat complicated table of figures, I very much doubt whether he will come to that conclusion.

Could not the right hon. Gentleman give a brief summary of his Answer, as his hon. Friend did to the previous Question?

When the right hon. Gentleman, for all his familiarity with these figures, studies them, he will appreciate why the answer to that question is in the negative.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of income was the Income Tax paid in 1951 and 1963 by a single man, a man with a wife and one child of school age, and a man with a wife and two children, respectively, whose total income, all earned, was £250 a year, £400 a year, £680 a year, £1,000 a year, £1,500 a year, and £1,999 a year, respectively.

Since the reply contains a number of figures, I will with permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the proportion payable on an income of £1,999 was 32·4 per cent, in 1951 and 24·0 per cent. in 1963; and no tax was payable in 1963 by a single man on £250 or a married man with two children on £680, although in 1951 a man in either of these situations paid about 7 per cent. of his income in tax.

While thanking my hon. Friend for having got out those figures, may I ask whether it would be correct to say that, although total Exchequer receipts from direct taxation have risen with incomes, individual taxpayers in those income brackets today pay either nothing, or a significantly smaller proportion of their incomes than in 1951?

My hon. Friend is, of course, right that the rates of tax have been decreased. As the House knows,

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the interest rate charged by the Public Works Loan Board to local council authorities in 1950 and 1960, respectively; and what effect the changed interest rates have had on rents and the cost-of-living index.

The rate of interest on Public Works Loan Board loans to local authorities in 1950–51 and 1960–61 was 3 per cent. and 6⅛ per cent.

I am sorry to intervene in this cosy exchange of spurious comparisons, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether in circulating these figures he will make adjustments for the fall in the value of money? If he does, he will discover, for example, that a married man with no children, getting £750 a year, in 1951 was paying 18 per cent. of his income in taxation, and that after adjustment for the fall in the value of money he is paying exactly the same proportion in real terms now.

I think that the hon. Gentleman will find the figures complete. I would point out that the reduction for a single man was 100 per cent. over this period if his income was £250; 33 per cent. if it was £1,000; 26 per cent. if it was £2,000; while in the highest incomes the reduction was less than 8 per cent.

What is the good of making political broadcasts about housing people if interest rates make it almost impossible for people to borrow money to build houses for themselves while interest rates are put before housing the people?

Although it is difficult to quantify these matters, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) asked a Question as a result of which it was found that comparing interest rates over the period 1952–53 to 1956–57, the difference between what was in fact paid and what would have been paid had the rate of interest remained at the 1951 level, was about £3,000 a year, which can hardly be said to be a crippling addition in the way the hon. Gentleman has implied.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the difference between 3 per cent. and 5¾ per cent. is equivalent to £1 a week in rent, and therefore the figures which he has given amount to substantially more than £1 a week in rent on the value of the house?

That is not shown by the figures which I have been able to find for houses in county boroughs and in the L.C.C. area. A rent of 10s. 2d. in 1950–51 was equivalent to 19s. 3d. in 1960–61, an increase of 9s. 0d.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Answer to my Question. Is he aware that in that Answer he mentioned the period 1956–57? It appears that the hon. Gentleman can give figures when they are favourable to the Government, but that when I ask for up-to-date figures he cannot provide them. Why cannot the hon. Gentleman give up-to-date figures for rents? Why pick out only the favourable ones?

I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman put down a Question to that effect.

The hon. Gentleman referred to my Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Purchase Tax on anglers' umbrellas is fixed at different rates; and if he will make a statement.

The rate of Purchase Tax on anglers' umbrellas is 25 per cent. I am aware of the anomaly which the hon. Member has in mind; it arises because garden umbrellas, like garden furniture in general are taxed at the rate of 10 per cent.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the document published by the Anglers' Association depicts this type of umbrella being us(id by anglers? Is it not ludicrous that one colour should bear a 10 per cent. tax, while another colour bears a 25 per cent. tax? Should not we get a clear answer to end this ludicrous situation and ask the Minister to stop angling?

There is an anomaly. It arises from the definition of garden umbrellas, which was agreed with the trade association. The simplest and most direct method of removing the anomaly is to classify garden umbrellas as umbrellas, and not as garden furniture, rater than the reverse.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the administrative cost to his Department in distinguishing for taxation purposes between unearned and earned income.

I regret that it is not possible to make a precise estimate, but the cost is quite small.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that owing to the rather indefinite nature of that Reply, it is conceivable that the net receipts are less than the net costs of this differentiation?

As I explained when my hon. Friend asked broadly the same Question this time last year, both these forms of tax are collected by the same officers and the same offices and the additional cost is very small.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many computers are available to his Department; and in which departments they are in use.

The departments of Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue each operate one computer, and so does the Stationery Office.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he could have given me more precise answers to my Questions both last year and now if he had had a computer?

Even a computer is no good for indulging in the mathematical equivalent of nuclear fission.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are earning incomes which are tax-free although above the level at which incomes normally become taxable; and if he will ensure that such incomes pay their due share of taxation.

As income which is not in law taxable is normally not required to be the subject matter of an Income Tax return, the information is not, of course, available.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless accept the inference in the Question, that there are incomes which are not subject to tax but which would ordinarily be so subject? If that is the case, how can he and his Government expect the organised workers to accept any kind of incomes policy?

When the hon. Member reflects upon some forms of income which do not attract tax, although the persons in receipt of them may be above the tax level, he may modify that view. They include war disability pensions, unemployment benefit and interest on National Savings Certificates.

Will the right hon. Gentleman just give a categorical answer to a categorical question, namely, whether he will seek to tax the incomes of people who own tax-free toll bridges, and who have done so for 250 years?

That point seems more appropriate to the next Question. I will call the hon. Member to ask Question No. 10.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will enumerate the difficulties which are preventing the taxation of incomes derived from tax-free toll bridges.

The withdrawal of the statutory exemptions from taxation which certain toll bridges at present enjoy would require legislation in a Finance Bill. On this I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to the hon. Member's Question and supplementaries on 17th March.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer was that the Government had no intention of taking action because of the apparently insuperable difficulties of the case? Since this has been going on for more than two years and the Government had an opportunity of legislating for it in last year's Finance Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to take urgent action? Otherwise, his appeals for an incomes policy are ludicrous.

I shall not be led into anticipating the Budget or the Finance Bill, but I would ask the hon. Member to reflect whether he really thinks that we shall help to achieve an incomes policy by suggesting that it is self-evident that a Government should unilaterally break a bargain even though it was made many years ago.

Would the owner of a tax-free toll bridge be committing any infringement of the law if he did not give a receipt for money paid?

That is certainly not a matter for me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the annual percentage rise or fall in all forms of taxation since 1951, taking that year as being equal to 100 and allowing for the annual depreciation in the purchasing value of the £sterling.

Yes, Sir. As the reply is in the form of a table I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Since the Government and the party they represent have consistently, at each election, said that they would reduce Government expenditure, reduce taxation and make the £ worth something, and since Government expenditure is now the highest that it has ever been and the £ is now worth less than at any time in our history, can we know when the Government will do something to implement some of their policies?

When the hon. Gentleman studies my answer he will see that the figures which I have given him in response to his Question indicate that an expanding economy has enabled simultaneously an increased yield of taxation to be produced by taking a smaller proportion of the gross national product.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information is given to emigrants to South Africa about restrictions on the repatriation of their capital should they wish to return to this country.

As a matter of routine, none; naturally we answer all inquiries to the best of our ability.

Is the Minister aware that many British citizens who have exported their capital with them to South Africa have found that they cannot stand the society out there, and that when they discover that there are restrictions upon the repatriation of their capital they feel that the British Government have let them down? Will he take steps to see that emigrants are warned before they go?

I do not think that it is possible for the Government to send out or broadcast warnings about restrictions imposed not only by South Africa but by practically every country, inside and outside the Commonwealth, on the remittance of funds back to the United Kingdom. We answer every query that comes to us to the best of our ability, and it is the normal practice of people seeking to go abroad to obtain advice from their banks and other institutions. It is not a responsibility of the Government to search out these people and volunteer advice.

asked the Postmaster-General when the Magherafelt telephone exchange will be converted to subscriber trunk dialling.

The installation of S.T.D. equipment will start this month and will be completed towards the end of the year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how welcome his reply will be to anyone who has tried to ring this exchange from outside Northern Ireland, because of the complete inability of telephone operators anywhere other than in Northern Ireland to pronounce the name?

It will be a matter of only a few months.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will give the average cost of installation and maintenance of a single telephone kiosk.

The average capital cost of a telephone kiosk is £330, including the cost of the line and exchange equipment. A kiosk must take £250 a year on average to cover total annual costs.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Post Office quite rightly uses certain social criteria in rural areas in respect of the installation of kiosks which cannot possibly make money? If that is the ease, will he explain to the uninitiated what these criteria are? Does he consult some body? It appears that on some occasions these kiosks are installed in completely out-of-the-way places, and yet on other occasions when we ask the Postmaster-General to install them in reasonable places he refuses.

The Post Office at present loses between £3 million and £4 million a year on telephone kiosks, but we have special arrangements with the Rural District Councils Association to make sure that deserving cases in rural areas are met.

Do the figures which the Postmaster-General has given include the cost of dealing with damage done to telephone kiosks by vandals? Does not that damage amount to a considerable figure over a year?

The figures naturally include all the costs.

asked the Postmaster-General what decision he has reached on the introduction of colour television in Great Britain; and when colour television broadcasting will commence.

I expect to reach a conclusion on this matter within the next week.

Will the Postmaster-General bear in mind the fact that considerable public irritation has been caused because of the delay in arriving at a decision? Is he not aware that defeated nations such as Germany and Japan have colour television? Delay is causing uncertainty in the industry, and it is imperative that this decision should be made as soon as is humanly possible.

As I said, I shall announce the decision next week.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, whereas we pioneered high definition television, in this instance it would be wiser to wait until Europe has decided what system of colour television she is to have before again introducing a system here which is not supported by Continental countries?

That is a very important consideration, and one which I am certainly taking into account.

Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the television industry, television manufacturers and the B.B.C. about the possibility of going it alone, irrespective of European compatibility; what the pitfalls are, and to what extent we could overcome them? Has he discarded completely any possibility of calling another European conference with the object of getting the best colour system for the whole of Europe?

The B.B.C., the I.T.A., and the radio industry form part of the Television Advisory Committee. I have had its advice, and when I have had an opportunity of considering it I will announce my decision.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the activities and broadcasts of the radio station Radio "Caroline"; if he is aware of the inherent dangers of allowing such a station to continue; and whether he will either jam all broadcasts, or prepare legislation to make pirate radio stations operating off the coastline illegal.

A station calling itself Radio "Caroline" has been broadcasting programmes of music during the day-time from a ship beyond territorial waters off Harwich. I recognise the dangers of the situation and have not overlooked the measures suggested by the hon. Member. As I informed the House on 5th February, there is a prospect of concerted action against pirate broadcasting by countries of the Council of Europe before long, but meanwhile am considering the possibility of new legislation. As the House knows, I am relying on British advertisers not to use this or any similar unauthorised station.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am obliged to him for that reply, and pleased to hear that he is seriously considering the matter? Is he aware that there is a very urgent need for something to be done to discourage the permanent establishment of Radio "Caroline" and Radio "Atlanta", and for a policy which would discourage the setting up of any other radio stations to Form a radio network round our shores?

I have indicated that we have not been idle in this matter. The most important thing is to dissuade advertising interests from using these pirate stations. The principal advertising associations have given an assurance that the principal advertisers will boycott these offenders. The gramophone record industry is also co-operating with the authorities and the Panamanian Government has withdrawn registration from the ship.

Will my right hon. Friend invite the directors of the B.B.C. to consider whether they should now accept a bit of advertising?

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whom this station is harming?

Yes, the station is causing interference with a Belgian station which communicates with ships at sea, and also with British maritime services.

asked the Postmaster-General what representations he has now received from the Civil Service Clerical Association regarding the proposed location of the Post Office Savings Bank.

The Civil Service Clerical Association has written to me expressing its disappointment at the decision to move the bank to Glasgow, contrary to the staff preference for Tees-side. I fully understand its reaction but as I said on 25th March the Government considered that the choice of Glasgow was in the national interest.

Is the Minister aware that it makes nonsense of joint consultation if his staff is asked where they would like to go and then told that they cannot go there? Can he tell the House whether this is the policy which he proposes to pursue regarding the location of other Government Departments?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. On two occasions I discussed this matter with representatives of the staff side and I made quite clear that their views would be taken into account, as indeed they were. I made it equally clear that their views, in the nature of the case, could not be decisive.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that most people interested in the preservation of good industrial relations feel that this was a most ridiculous way in which to handle the matter? Is he aware that it would have been just as simple for the Government to come to a decision without making inquiries of the staff side at all? Will he please accept that in the north of England—even though we may perhaps be prejudiced in this matter—we think that it was a very bad way to handle the affair?

I am sorry, but I wholly disagree with my hon. Friend. Had the Government come to a decision and subsequently informed the staff association, I am sure that the association would have been more irate than it is at the moment.

Is the Minister aware that his decision to move the bank to Glasgow has been welcomed enthusiastically in Scotland, and that the Glasgow Corporation and other authorities will do everything in their power to welcome the staff? Is he aware that many of the anxieties which the staff have about the move will not materialise and that they will find themselves very welcome and will be very happy in Glasgow?

I have every reason to believe that what the hon. Gentleman has said is true.

Is the Minister aware that the decision not to transfer the Post Office Savings Bank to Tees-side has been received with no enthusiasm whatever, and indeed with considerable disappointment? Was not an assumption made some time ago—to which I understand the Minister gave some measure of support—that the transfer would be made to Tees-side? May I ask a plain question? Was it the right hon. Gentleman who came to this decision, or the Prime Minister?

The decision to send the bank to Glasgow was a Government decision. In a dispersal of this size, involving the employment in Glasgow of perhaps 5,000 or 6,000 people, it was perfectly right that I should consult my colleagues in the Government.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what date the Essex County Council first communicated with his Department in reply to Circular No. 6/62 of 8th February, 1962, on the problem of gypsies and other travellers.

On 27th July, 1962.

Does that reply reveal that there were over 200 families without lawful sites, twice as many as in Kent? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Kent is trying to provide sites? What is Essex doing about it?

The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question would be made more appropriately in reply to his next Question. It is true that a survey showed 208 caravans, but it was the conclusion of the Essex County Council that the number of caravans in relation to the size of the county called for no further action.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that people who live in caravans, who have no site for their caravan and are being hounded by the police, are comforted to know that they are in a bigger county than Kent? Is not that a stupid way to deal with this problem? Is he aware that we are asking for sites for men, women, and children and that this is not South Africa—this is Britain?

If the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of reading my Answer, he will see that I did not say that at all.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the unsatisfactory conditions in Essex for gypsies and other travellers, what progress has been made in discussions with the county council for the provision of places where their caravans can be accommodated, particularly during winter months when work is not available on the farms, for those who wish for a settled way of life and that their children shall go to school.

Following earlier discussions, Essex County Council carried out a further survey on 14th November, 1963. They are now looking for suitable sites in those areas where the concentration of itinerants shows that there is a need for winter quarters.

Surely the survey was taken in February and March of 1962? What have they been doing in the two previous years? Or is it a case that his Department has not exerted any pressure or tried to persuade them to do something which it might have been expected would be done for families who are in this situation because of the passing of legislation in this House, including the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have undertaken to see the county councils of the Home Counties again very shortly, but he will also know that my powers are limited to persuasion and exhortation. With the advantage of hindsight, it is evident that Essex has not done as much as ought to have been done, or as has been done by neighbouring counties.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many local authorities have failed to comply with the Public Lavatories (Turnstiles) Act, 1963; and how many turnstiles still remain in municipal lavatories.

My latest information is that of the 87 authorities which earlier refused to do anything or had not reached a decision, all but 14 have now removed their turnstiles; 7 of these will remove theirs within the next few weeks. I do not know the exact number of turnstiles still remaining.

Is the Minister aware that the deadline for the removal of these turnstiles was two months ago and that these 14 local authorities are breaking the law with impunity? Can he say whether any private citizen would be allowed to break the law in that way without being called to account by the Government or the courts? Will he, therefore, issue immediate instructions to these 14 local authorities to open the doors at the side of the turnstiles to give free and unrestricted access for women to these conveniences without further delay?

My right hon. Friend has no power to take the action suggested by the hon. Lady. I can assure her that my right hon. Friend will use the enforcement powers in the Act where that is appropriate. I am sure that she will appreciate that High Court action which is envisaged is not necessarily appropriate in every case when a delay is likely to be a matter of only a few weeks?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what arrangements he has now made for consultation with local planning authorities and other local authorities on the proposals contained in the South-East Study; what other steps he proposes to take to ascertain public opinion on these proposals; and when he expects to take final decisions as regards the location and size of individual expansions.

I have asked local planning authorities, and the councils of towns where expansion is suggested, to let me have their views by 30th June; and my Department will arrange meeting; with them when they are ready to discuss the issues which affect them. I am also ready to consider views put forward by any other interested body or person. A final decision to approve a particular expansion cannot be taken without much preparatory work, including a local inquiry. I cannot therefore say when decisions on particular schemes will be retched.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific in giving us a time-table? Does he not appreciate that until the decisions referred to in the last part of my Question are taken it is very difficult for planning authorities to make decisions?

One of the results of the plan being discussed in public is to cause some doubts until the final decisions are taken. This is inevitable. We shall have the views of the authorities by 30th June and the discussions with them will follow as soon as possible. I hope the decisions will be within the next year.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will arrange for the Vincent Report on Ipswich which is now only obtainable from his Department at the price of £1 2s. 6d. to be printed as a Stationery Office publication or otherwise made available to the public at a reasonable price.

The Vincent Report was printed under Stationery Office arrangements. It is one of three similar Reports all available at the same price of £1 2s. 6d. which is the lowest figure at which they can be sold without loss.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this Report is of great interest, not only to people in Ipswich but throughout East Anglia and, it may be, elsewhere, as this is a model study? Does he appreciate that it is quite impossible for the majority of people who are interested to pay the price of £1 2s. 6d.?

The hon. and learned Member appreciate that this Report and the other two which go with it are reports of a theoretical study. Its publication does not imply either that Ipswich will be expanded or, if it is, that it will necessarily be done in this particular way. It has, therefore, no significance for the general public in Ipswich, but it is of value to those professionally concerned and in local government. I see no reason why they should not pay an economic price for its production.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he has yet completed his consultations about amending the law relating to burial and cremation; and when the proposed Bill will be introduced.

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

On the second part, I hope that the Bill, which will apply to England and Wales, will be ready before the end of the year. As the hon. and learned Member is aware, the intention is to hand it to the noble Lord, Lord Colville of Culross, in place of the one which he withdrew last year.

Does not the Minister realise that his shocking delay in this urgent matter concerning life and death is causing serious inconvenience to citizens and local authorities in a variety of ways and to the relatives of those who cannot avoid death any more than the rest of us?

I have no doubt that that will be the concern of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he proposes to take regarding the letter sent him by the hon. Member for Salford, East, regarding a firm of landlords, E. Ross Ltd. of Bolton, who, having failed to induce three widows, all old age pensioners, to buy the houses in Salford in which they have been tenants for more than 30 years, have sent them notices stating that their houses are decontrolled and raising their rents by 17s. 6d. a week.

I have referred the matter to the local authority to consider whether there has been any contravention of the Rent Act, 1957.

As this kind of trick is being played on controlled tenants all over the country, does not the Minister think that, where court convictions are obtained, severe sentences should be imposed and that this would have an effect on other guilty landlords?

It is not for me to make any such comment about the judiciary. I have no evidence that this practice, if it does exist, is widespread.

Are the three ladies referred to in the Question examples of the old people who have nothing whatever to worry about, of whom we were told in a Conservative television show recently?

They certainly have nothing whatsoever to worry about if they take advantage of their legal rights preserved to them by law.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what was the average cost of interest charges per week for each council dwelling in 1951 and in 1963 for the United Kingdom and for the City of Salford, respectively.

The information asked for is not available.

Is the Minister aware that I am very disappointed that an important figure like that is not available, but, as a layman can work it out himself, is he aware that the figure for interest alone on an average council flat is £2 14s. a week, which is double what it was in 1951?

The figure cannot be worked out as simply as that. My Department has a great deal of information on this matter, but the exact information is available only in part and in particular not for most of 1963. Of course, earnings have risen very substantially, subsidies have trebled and where councils are sensible enough to apply rent rebate schemes there is no reason whatever why everyone should not have council house or flat accommodation at reasonable rents.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the subsidy does not equal the increase in interest charges?

No, it is not possible to work it out in this way. The subsidy has trebled—the straight ordinary housing subsidy plus the additional subsidies for high building and expensive sites.