asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many staff are employed in his Directorate General of Research and Development; how many vacancies exist; what are the total costs of salaries, wages, pensions, accommodation and all overhead expenses since this Directorate was established; how many research reports it has published; and what reduction in the cost of housing units, or increase in the number of housing units constructed, has resulted from its work.

At the end of 1966 the staff employed totalled 231; there were 53 vacancies. Total costs amounted to £1,960,000. The Directorate has issued 28 publications, a monthly statistical bulletin, and a sub- stantial number of contributions to the scientific and technical Press. The Directorate is helping the industry in many different ways, and its work is highly appreciated but it is not practicable to quantify the results of its efforts in the way suggested in the Question.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but would he not agree that, as this was an internal "gimmick" set up in 1962 by the party opposite when they were in power, as it has produced nothing worth while, and is a duplication of what is already done better by the Ministry of Technology, it should be disbanded?

No, Sir. In the deathbed repentance period of Conservative Government, they produced one or two good ideas and this was one. It is doing work of great value in winter building, building maintenance, the application of computers to building management, component development and other matters which it would take too long to describe in a supplementary answer. This work will grow in value over the years ahead.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress has been made by him in organising the proposed Construction Industry Research and Information Association based on the Civil Engineering Research Association; how much public money will be provided in a full year; and how much has been promised by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, and by the Royal Institute of British Architects.

Proposals for the new Association have been accepted by the Council of the Civil Engineering Research Association and will shortly be put to the full membership for ratification. The new Association would receive a grant from public funds of around £200,000 in its first full year, depending on the amount which the industry subscribes. Neither the National Federation nor the Royal Institute, as such, has promised a monetary contribution, but assurances of financial support have been given by individual firms in the industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the building employers have apparently offered only £16,000? As they and the British architects are apparently not very enthusiastic about this idea, does he not think that this, again, is an unnecessary duplication of what is being done much better by the Building Research Station, for example, which is rightly under the Minister of Technology and which has all the resources of that Department?

No, Sir. Whatever is done by Government Departments or Government research associations, the industry ought to do more for itself and should have had an association of this kind years ago. As to the amounts of money promised, we are hoping that for the first year it will have a budget of £400,000, of which about three-quarters has been promised already. I hope that more will be promised when the full meeting of C.E.R.A. ratifies the decision of its Council. This will not be enough for what most of us would like, but it will have a growth potential and I hope that it will grow over the years to come.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will seek powers to add the preservation of ships of historic value or beauty of design to the similar powers he has to save buildings.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the project for the formation of a National Maritime Trust for the preservation of ships of historic interest and importance? Will he reconsider that negative reply?

I should like to have details of that from my hon. Friend and I would consult other right hon. Friends of mine in the Government about it. I am not sure that the Ministry of Public Building and Works is the right harbour for this venture, but perhaps something might be done—I do not know—in Government generally.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he will take to beautify the outside wall of the garden of Buckingham Palace.

I understand the hon. Member has in mind that roses and plants might be put outside the stretch of wall along Grosvenor Place. This is a matter for the Westminster City Council which is giving it sympathetic consideration.

Would the right hon. Gentleman do his best to "chivvy up" the Westminster Council? Would he not agree that it would be very much nicer that the wall should be worthy of the Palace rather than, as now, looking like part of a Victorian prison?

The hon. Gentleman has put the view to the City Council that something might be done here. I understand that the Council is now giving it active consideration.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what new buildings are planned or improvements made in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, and H.M.S. "Drake", Devonport, in 1967.

It is now planned to redevelop H.M.S. "Drake" at a cost of about £2 million. Preliminary work will start this year and the new construction should begin in 1968 or early 1969. I have written to the hon. Lady about the dockyard.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and appreciate his courtesy in sending me a letter dealing with the dockyard. However, considering that everything that he mentioned can be seen either from the 14-storey blocks or the top of a bus, I cannot see why it should be confidential. With regard to H.M.S. "Drake", will the Wrens move into these quarters in the near future? Does he consider getting rid of the hutted accommodation, which it is undesirable for naval personnel on leave to sleep in?

I was advised on the security aspect by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. It is not the usual practice to publish details of developments at dockyards. Even if some aspects may be apparent, if the whole lot is added together, it gives a picture of the naval building programme which should preferably be kept confidential. The earlier scheme to modernise the Hawkins Block has been dropped because the building was too small and the conversion was uneconomic, but a new building to provide accommodation for the Wrens is being considered as part of the development plan. On the hon. Lady's other question, it depends which parts of the hutting are involved. If the hon. Lady would like it, I will give her some more detailed information in a letter.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what work he intends shall be done at the Royal Naval Hospital, Plymouth, in 1967 to modernise this hospital.

About £20,000 is to be spent on urgent minor works. My Department will also prepare a development plan for the future modernisation of this hospital.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this hospital could play a useful rôle by continuing to take in civilian patients? Is he aware that it has excellent medical and nursing staff? Will he see to it that this hospital is modernised so that it is able to take in part of the waiting list which we have in the West Country?

We have an ambitious development plan which will involve the modernisation of this hospital. As to the rôle it plays and its relationship with civilian needs, I suggest that that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he now intends to hand over the Kidbrooke housing site to the Greater London Council; and what payments he has so far received from that authority, in respect of this land.

Under the present agreement with the Council, 23½ acres have already been handed over. Another five acres should be available by the end of 1968 and a further three acres by the end of 1969. Payments so far total £789,000.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why there has been this delay in respect of part of this very much needed site?

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the majority of it has been handed over already. The other two parts, to which I referred, are parts where R.A.F. units are stationed at the moment. Under the timetable agreed in 1965, they should leave by the dates I mentioned, and this will be consistent with G.L.C.'s proposals for housing on the site. I have no reason to believe that the dates will not be met in time.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what action he is taking to reduce the excessive dependence on imported materials in certain building systems.

I am satisfied that there is no excessive dependence on imported materials, but I have impressed on the industry the need to exercise economy in their use. The general question of import saving is also being considered by the E.D.C. for Building.

In view of the fact that blame is sometimes unjustly fastened on to the building industry for causing a strain on our balance of payments, will the right hon. Gentleman initiate discussions with his colleagues at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government with a view to suggesting that they might abolish their system of 5M, in view of its excessive dependence on timber and the fact that it is not universally aesthetically acceptable?

These matters are being reviewed by all the Government Departments concerned and we are anxious to make import savings where necessary. As for putting restrictions on the use of timber in the systems involved, such restrictions might jeopardise the industrialised parts of the housing programme. Again, other restrictions might be in breach of our agreements with other countries in E.F.T.A. which provide timber for us.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what studies he has sponsored into the capacity of the building and construction industries.

My Department has commissioned a study at the University of Manchester into the factors affecting growth and efficiency in the building industry. We are also seeking to negotiate a joint study by the University of Manchester and the University of Liverpool into the effect of variations in building resources on building firms and projects in the Manchester and Merseyside areas.

In view of the importance of this matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that the Manchester University study will be published? Is he satisfied that there will be adequate liaison between those engaged on that study and the Walters Committee on Computers?

Yes, Sir. I would expect that the results of both studies will be published. As for liaison, it is the task of the Directorate General of Research and Development in my Ministry to co-ordinate such research. Mr. Walters is, in fact, the Deputy Director General and it is reasonable to say that the work on computers is being correlated to these other studies.

Would not the capacity of the industry increase if the Government ceased to give support for direct labour being used in the building industry?

I believe that there is room for both private and public enterprise building, providing they are efficient.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we attach great importance to these two studies? Is he satisfied that enough attention is being paid to the need to increase productivity in the vital maintenance sector?

The Parliamentary Secretary is, in fact, the chairman of a group which has the task of co-ordinating a number of maintenance studies so as to achieve efficiency. However, I am not satisfied that maintenance is being carried out as efficiently as it should be. It occupies about 40 per cent. of building operatives and I agree that not enough study was given in the past to the efficiency of this sector. However, it is something to which we are giving a great deal of study at the moment.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what grants he has made towards research into the use of plastic pipes for hot water supply.

None. Sir. The plastic manufacturers are devoting a great deal of research and development effort to this, and may expect considerable returns from success in this field. My Ministry is keeping closely in touch with progress, and the Building Research Station is also carrying out some work in this field.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a very important sphere indeed, in view of the uncertainties about the supply and price of copper? Would he consider the payment of grants to encourage an urgent study into this matter?

I agree that this is a vitally important matter and that is why we are keeping closely in touch with progress. However, we believe that at the moment there is no need for Government grants because a great deal of research and development is being done by the manufacturers themselves.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works in what year since the cessation of hostilities in 1945 the stock of bricks in Great Britain exceeded 770 million at the end of the month of November.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now announce the target for brick production in 1967 agreed with the representatives of the brick production industry; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he intends to offer advice to brickmakers on the likely requirements for brick production in 1967.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the size of the stocks of bricks at the end of 1966; and what were the comparable figures for the end of 1965, 1964, and 1963, respectively.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the current stockpiles of bricks.

Stocks at the end of 1966 were about 886 million compared with 561 million, 115 million and 263 million at the end of 1965, 1964 and 1963 respectively. The stock in November, 1966, was the highest for that month since 1945.

Will the Minister now confirm that the stockpile of bricks today is probably approaching the 1,000 million figure? Is it not fantastic that at this time of the year, in such favourable weather conditions, bricks of this quantity should be in stock? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered what the cost of this stockpiling is and would he not agree that a continuation of this stockpiling is a strong disincentive to brickmakers to make more bricks, so that they will be available when they are needed again?

I agree that this is an abnormally high stock, as I indicated in my Answer. I hope that it will not discourage brick makers from investing in plant for the future because, clearly, the building needs of the country in the years ahead will be such that we shall need an increasing production of bricks and other materials.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman chance his arm and give the industry a target? Is he aware that at present the only target the industry has is that for 1965? As the brickmakers produced last year 18 per cent. less than the 1965 target, and remembering the quantities which they are perfectly capable of producing, would not he agree that they are in a bit of muddle as a result of his action?

They probably find it more helpful that we should keep in constant touch with them. This we are doing. I met their representatives several times and my officials are in more frequent contact with them. The aim is to have regular discussions so that the position is known from month to month and so that we may give them the best advice we can.

Is not the reduction of more than 800 million bricks in production last year, compared with 1964, considered with the enormous surplus about which we have just heard from the right hon. Gentle, a bitter reflection of the failure of the Government's house-building programme?

No, Sir. The Government's house-building programme has been better than the previous Conservative Government's programme. [Interruption.] Naturally, we all want to see even better results. I believe that there will be an increase in building starts in the private sector this year. This was the sector in which starts have been falling—resulting in one of the main factors for the excessive stocks of bricks.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman tell my hon. Friend that he is keeping in constant touch with the industry? If that is so, why does he think that the brickmakers went to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government the other day? Was it because the Minister of Public Building and Works had told them that they were exaggerating the position last August or was it because they had given up all hope of the Minister doing anything for the industry, for which he is responsible?

I have seen them a number of times recently and I do not believe that they exaggerated the position, although certain hon. Gentlemen opposite do at times make exaggerated statements. The reason the brickmakers went to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of House and Local Government was because they wanted to discuss the sort of advice given by that Ministry to local authorities about the proportion of industrialised building that should be done. The brickmakers were anxious about this and it was thought better that they should see my hon. Friend about it.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are now considering, in this difficult situation, giving perhaps temporary credit help to the brick industry?

No, Sir. We have not been considering giving such help specifically to the brick industry. An announcement was made a short while ago by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about bridging finance. That was made in very general terms, but it ought to help brickmaking as well as other industries.

Has the Minister observed the number of brickworks which are closing down? Does he appreciate how long it takes to get them started up again?

Yes, I have noticed that, and it worries me, but, to put the matter in perspective, we should remember that brickworks closures have been going on for a number of years for a variety of reasons. These include technical changes which have led to certain methods becoming out of date. Of course I regard this as a serious situation—but I do not regard the Government as culpable in any way, because most of the capacity concerned was in fact planned, if not laid down, before the present Government came into office.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many research projects into the problems of the construction and allied industries he has given to university departments.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 6th December, 1966.—[Vol. 737, c. 290.]

Does the Minister realise that while industry welcomes these inquiries, each of the universities is sending out separate questionnaires many of which are duplicated and many of the questions are considered not to concern increased productivity? Can he do something to cut down this waste of manpower by co-ordinating efforts?

We do co-ordinate efforts in the sense that my Ministry ensures that the various contracts for which it is responsible do not overlap. As to research contracts which involve filling in forms, I know that people find that a nuisance, but I hope they will co-operate. I am sure the House will agree that increasing co-operation will be of benefit to both sides, as it is in other industries.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what increase he expects in the amount of public building in the Greater London area in 1967.

I expect this sector to show an increase in 1967, but it is not possible to forecast its precise size.

Is the Minister aware that grave doubts are arising about the accuracy of some of the figures for council house approved tenders in Greater London recently issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government? Is he aware that in the Borough of Bromley a tender for 256 dwellings has been wrenched out of the 1967 programme and put into the 1966 list, which gives a totally misleading picture?

No, Sir. I do not think there is any doubt about the accuracy of the list of approvals. As I understand it, criticism was made by Conservative members of the G.L.C. that these were approvals and not starts. They are an indication of housing activity this year, which was the point of the hon. Member's original Question. These approvals in 1966 show a 50 per cent. increase over 1964 and indicate the enlightened and progressive management under which the G.L.C. and most London Boroughs operate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the astonishment with which my constituents and I look at the development of Knightsbridge Barracks for the use of the Forces when there is a grave shortage of building in the Greater London area?

Soldiers are people, and need to be rehoused as well as others. We are not building housing accommodation for horses but for people. There has to be a housing programme for the Forces in London and in other parts of the country.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he is satisfied that there will be no shortage of building materials needed to carry out the public building programme in the Greater London area in 1967; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. There is at present an adequate supply of virtually all building materials in the Greater London area.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the building industries concerning the placing of contracts for public building.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is his policy for the placing of building contracts by public bodies and local authorities; and whether he will make a statement.

My Department's contracts for building and civil engineering work are normally placed after competitive tender by a selected number of contractors chosen from an approved list. Other methods, such as negotiated con tracts, are used in appropriate circumstances.

Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the situation in Southwark? Can he confirm that the report by the National Building Agency has criticised the inefficiency in the direct labour system there?

Yes, Sir, but a question of that sort should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. On direct labour generally, as I said in reply to another Question, the Government endeavour to see that it is efficient, but efficiency in direct labour varies just as it varies in the private sector.

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned methods of tendering. Where there are direct labour departments, are private contractors enabled to show that they can compete openly with direct labour? Quite apart from Southwark, are there not instances of wastefulness and worse in many industrial towns throughout the country? Could he not look into this matter and not shuffle it off on to another Department? Will he take notice that we want to have a debate on this matter at the earliest opportunity?

I am not shuffling this subject off, but reminding the House that this is my right hon. Friend's responsibility. He issued Circular 50/65 on this subject which has been a matter of some discussion. I merely say that generally I think the House will not be prone to look at the occasionally well publicised failures but at the picture as a whole including successes in direct labour.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many of the large cities, Liverpool in particular, over the years private enterprise has not tendered in the normal sense but has had agreed contracts one following the other?

Yes, Sir. This form of serial tendering is one which has many advantages and I hope to see it spread among public authorities generally.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he seems to be denying responsibility for something almost every week, but he has a responsibility for the building industry and should fulfil it and he ought not to allow his Department to be eaten alive by the Government? If the N.B.A. had not been transferred, there is some reason to believe that the Southwark situation might not have arisen.

I cannot be responsible for the inaccuracy of supplementary questions by hon. Members opposite if they ask a Question of one Minister which refers to another Minister.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that much of the irritation expressed by hon. Members opposite about direct labour organisations run by local authorities is because of the magnificent contribution those organisations have made to solving the housing problem of this country?

Yes. Sir. I think the attitude of many hon. Members opposite is completely doctrinaire on this subject. The Government's attitude is that there is a contribution to be made both by direct labour and private enterprise and we want to encourage the best developments in both.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he expects to publish the report of his inquiry into labour only sub-contracting; and by what date he instructed the Group to report to him.

The inquiry has not yet been set up. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour hopes to make a statement about it in the near future.

This is quite astonishing. Would not the Minister agree that an inquiry of this kind would be of the greatest possible value to the industry? Can he not inject a little urgency into this matter and press for the inquiry to be started? How long will it take?

I agree that it is a matter of very great importance. That is why the Government intend to set up the inquiry. As to the time taken, since I answered a Question on the matter on 21st November, my right hon. Friend and I have been discussing it with both sides of the building industry and the E.D.C.s for the building and the civil engineering industries. We thought it right to discuss the inquiry and the terms of reference in order to get it off to the right start, but I hope there will be an announcement very soon now.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from members of the architectural profession about the current state of trade in the building and construction industry; and whether he will make a statement.

Representatives of the architectural profession take part in regular discussions on the state of the industry.

Does not the Minister agree that R.I.B.A. commissions are the best indication of the state of the industry? Does he not think that the 16 per cent. decrease in work over the third quarter of 1966, including housing reveals a very shocking state of affairs indeed in the Government's housing programme?

There has been a steep decline in architects' commissions, but, as I said in my original reply, the kind of representations I have had refer to the change in balance between work in private offices and work in public authorities. In public authorities there is still a shortage of architects. Taking the architects' profession over the country as a whole, there is at the moment no shortage of work.

Does not the Minister agree that architects generally throughout the country are indicating a serious situation in the building and construction industry and allied industries which is very serious indeed? What does he intend to do about it? Something must be done to improve the situation?

The most disturbing feature in recent months has been the decline in the starts of new housing in the private enterprise sector. In other sectors of work, including the public sector of housing, there has been an upward trend. A number of things have been done recently which I think should encourage a revival of private housing starts. The reduction of Bank Rate is one. The announcement by the building societies of the extra funds they expect to have available is another. I could go on giving other examples. The Government are considering what further they could do to stimulate this sector.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now announce the results of his Departmental discussions with the Board of Trade and representatives of the building and construction industries regarding a standard form of building contract; and whether he will make a statement.

The discussions have strengthened the Government's view that the Restrictive Trade Practices Act does not obstruct the development of a standard building contract form as recommended by the Banwell Committee and need not impede the general adoption of such a form when available.

Is the Minister aware that the building industry is being held in suspense over the settlement of this vital matter? Last July he said that it would be settled during the summer. What is the reason for this prolonged delay? When will it be ended?

I should be surprised if I had said that the matter would be settled during the summer. I certainly said that we hoped to make some progress on it. I think that we have. The Board of Trade is now discussing with the Registrar of the Restrictive Practices Court measures which could legally be taken by building employers to promote a more general use of the model contract form.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will produce an annual report on the work of his Department.

No, Sir.

As the Minister of Housing and Local Government has coyly deferred his annual report for 1965–66, are we to understand that the Minister of Public Building and Works would refuse to make a report because he would be afraid of publishing the contents?

If I did publish a report, it would be on my own responsibilities and not those of my right hon. Friend. There has been no annual report from the Ministry of Works since 1951—in other words, none was ever published when hon. Members opposite were in office—because it was felt that the information we had to communicate could better be communicated by other means and that reports would be superfluous. I think that this was a correct decision. I am not aware of any general demand that we should publish an annual report.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what overseas visits he proposes to make to inspect the work of his Department in 1967.

I have not so far made arrangements for any such visits.

Does the Minister recognise how greatly these visits are appreciated by his staff overseas, particularly at present? Does he not find that the fact that he has not got a Parliamentary Secretary in this House makes it more difficult for him to get away now?

I made one trip to the Far East in September. If I were to plan another trip overseas, it might mean that I would have to make it in a recess rather than when the House was sitting, for the reason the hon. Gentleman has given. I think that these visits are appreciated, not only overseas, but at home where our Ministry has many offices in the regions—district offices, depots, and so on. To get round to all of them would mean a couple of years or so of non-stop travel doing nothing else, which is something I could not justify. However, I take the point and I hope to make further visits overseas in due course.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what consultations he has had with private builders about giving incentives to the building industry during the present economic difficulties.

There have been consultations with representatives of various branches of the industry regarding steps which would serve in particular to stimulate private sector house building.

Does not the Minister realise that as long ago as 15th December the Prime Minister gave a hint to the House that some such step was going on? When are we to hear further about this? Can he suggest what sort of help we shall get? I hope that it is not to be the sort of help we had with Selective Employment Tax. If we were to have such help again, it would be final disaster.

There have been a number of developments, of which the hon. Gentleman should be aware. The announcement of the option mortgage scheme; larger subsidies for local authority housing; the reduction in Bank Rate; the increase in the funds available to building societies—all of these are factors which would help. I expect that there will be an announcement of some other Government measures fairly shortly.

Is not the Minister aware that the Rhodesian Government have taken steps to see that the building industry takes up any slack in their economy? Would he consider sending over a mission to examine their highly successful methods?

I have not considered getting any guidance from that direction, either on this matter or on any other matter.

If the aggregation of all of the advantages which the Minister is now claiming, such as the reduction in Bank Rate, the mortgage option scheme, and the remainder, has led to the record stock of bricks at 886 million at the end of December, how can the Minister justify his statement that his housing policy is a roaring success?

Our housing progress has been better than that of hon. Members opposite but still not nearly good enough. Therefore, I would not use the expression "roaring success" and never have. Until every family in the country has a decent home to live in, none of us in national government or local government can afford to be complacent on this subject.

Is the Minister aware that this is a very disappointing answer? Builders all over the country are disappointed. They have been waiting for this. Is he aware that the Prime Minister's statement on 15th December was taken very seriously, not just as a hint? Can it now be translated at least into a lightly given promise?

Since the Prime Minister's statement in December, discussions have been proceeding with the builders, with the building societies and others. When their representatives talk to me and my right hon. Friends, they do not talk in the exaggerated accents of hon. Members opposite.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what discussions he has had with the building materials industry about the production of and demand for building materials in 1967.

I met representatives of the building materials producers on 12th January and discussed with them the position concerning production and demand.

Would not the Minister agree that, in view of the past fiascos in this field, it is valueless to have a global target for protection five years in advance, unless he can produce some indication of housing starts for the years in between? Will his Department now prepare public estimates for the years 1967–70 so that the brickmakers can know what the Government's estimate of housing starts is likely to be in those years?

I take the point that the building material producers want to have as much information as possible. That is what we are working on. As the hon. Gentleman says, the actual number of housing starts is more important than targets. These are the important things to the building material producers. Therefore the measures we are taking to stimulate private housing starts will be valuable to the building material producers as well as those waiting for homes.

If the Minister believes, as he said a few moments ago, that the best way of dealing with the problems in the brick industry is to keep in touch with the industry, rather than by fixing targets for every year, why did the Government give such tremendous publicity to their targets for 1965–70?

This was part of the National Plan and was appreciated as such. If hon. Members opposite did not think it was such a good idea, I wonder why they voted unanimously for the National Plan when it came before the House.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the estimated cost of the reconstruction of all official residences in Whitehall excluding Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street; and how many residences will be provided when the work is completed.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and the hon. Members for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on 23rd May, 1966.

Does this represent a roaring success in the Ministerial housing drive? How many more residences are planned? What was the cost of the furniture and decorations in those already occupied?

The figures referred to have been given. I think that the pro- vision of these residences in Admiralty House was a sensible use of a building of great historic and architectural interest. It made sense that someone should live there. This was a decision made by the Tory Government, but they wanted to provide only one residence there and we took a more democratic view and turned it into two residences.

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider providing an official residence for the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)?

Since this matter has been raised without my having received any notice, may I ask my right hon. Friend, when these matters about official residences for Ministers, grace and favour residences and so on are raised, whether we can go into the whole subject and see how it affects the friends of many hon. Members opposite?

I would always be glad to debate any of these matters. As to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I think we have had plenty of evidence that he is well able to take care of himself.

There is not much grace and favour about him!

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he will make available for inspection by hon. Members those historic buildings in Whitehall, other than Downing Street and Barry's Treasury, which have been the subject of recent works of reconstruction and repair.

A visit to the Banqueting House, 36, Whitehall, and the ground floor of Admiralty House has been arranged for the morning of Tuesday, 28th February.

Why does this visit have to stop on the ground floor? May we not be allowed to see the whole of the building and discover what goes on there?

The obvious answer, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, is that we are talking about people's homes. I think that he and some of his hon. Friends might stop being so mean about this. I think they are showing a rather mean spirit in harping on this particular subject.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the progress with the provision of Members' facilities, with particular regard to additional desk space and rooms.

The Star Chamber Court building is now occupied mainly by Ministers and members of the Shadow Cabinet. There are five double rooms for Members on the top floor. Accommodation has, however, been released elsewhere in the precincts, and this amounts to 64 additional places which are being reallocated to private Members. In addition, 38 desks are being provided in the Cloisters. In all, therefore, there are 112 additional places now available for private Members.

Whilst we are all grateful for small mercies—I believe I am speaking for all hon. Members on both sides of the House—would not my right hon. Friend declare that it is the intention of the present Government ultimately to provide every Member with a room? Will he understand that we want these rooms not for any personal comfort but so that we can be more efficient Members of Parliament so far as our constituencies are concerned and so that we may have an opportunity to study properly the great events which involve everybody in this country whom we represent?

Yes, of course, one appreciates the needs of hon. Members. I would only add that we ought to provide rooms only for those who need them. Some do not need them. Apart from that, my hon. Friend knows that the Services Committee is actively concerned with the possibility of providing a new building. The particular problem which now concerns us is the site of the new building to make sure that it is really useful to Members and not merely an unuseful adjunct.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman seek to sort out Members into those who are supposed to need rooms and those who are supposed not to need them? Is he not aware that many Members are driven from the precincts of the Palace of Westminster elsewhere to seek accommodation because there is no proper accommodation for them here?

I am indeed aware of that. All I said was that in view of the difficulties we have experienced, in the first instance we ought to limit our plans to those who need and say they need extra room. That is not true of every Member of this House.

asked the Lord President of the Council what arrangements he is making for the use of the Strangers' Gallery during morning sittings of this honourable House.

:I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave to similar Questions on Monday, 23rd January.—[Vol. 739, cc. 967–969.]

Does not one of those answers, with its reference to the hours which would have to be worked by doorkeepers, indicate that the Government expect that we shall not sit any less late at night by reason of sitting in the mornings? Is not the organisation of our business in a way that the Government think will not interest the public sufficiently to make them want to attend, bringing this House into contempt? Is that the object?

It is not. I am prepared to explain briefly to the right hon. Gentleman the case for morning sittings. We are putting our less important business on two nights a week in two mornings, on the ground that this is of convenience to most Members of this House. Business varies in importance and popularity and we have put this business in the mornings.

Has my right hon. Friend any idea why hon. Members opposite are opposed to morning sittings?

I think the brief answer to that question is, "Yes".

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any approximate figure of the number of members of the public who come round the Chamber in the mornings? Does he realise that these morning sittings will mean cutting at least two mornings out of the four when the public can visit the Chamber and that these members of the public will want to go into the Gallery? What is h going to do about it?

Of course, it is true that when we use our Chamber the public cannot walk through it, but we must regard the use of the Chamber by the House as the first priority. We are not just a museum. We are a live place. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman says that I ought to be preoccupied with the thought that if we were not working here the public would be able to walk through and look at this place as a dead museum, I am not impressed.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has understood the point of my hon. Friend's question. He was complaining of the closure of the Galleries during the public sittings of the House in the mornings, not of the filling of the Chamber.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. A second question arises, and it is something on which the Services Committee, comprising people of all parties, are now reflecting. I believe that in the summer we may have a number of members of the public who would normally have walked through the House and who will request seats in the Gallery. In that case, of course, we must find room for them. They will come, however, not to walk through but to study and listen to our debates. They must, therefore, be treated as people who want to listen to the debates. For those we have made provision, and I repeat that if we have underestimated the demand, as I hope we have, we shall ensure that the public have adequate provision in the Gallery.

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on an early occasion.

asked the Lord President of the Council, with regard to admis- sion to the 155 seats in the Strangers' Gallery, whether he will invite the Services Committee to examine the present system whereby those given cards by high commissions and embassies, who can each give four cards a day, have priority over those in the public queue, with a view to arranging that only the first 20 people to present such cards will be given priority, others taking their place with the general public.

The arrangements for admitting all categories of visitors to the Gallery involve a delicate balance between the space available and the many and conflicting demands. This balance has been reached after many years of experience, and it would be unwise to upset it.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a system that started in 1912 when there were fewer embassies and high commissions than there are now, is not necessarily the right system for the present time'? Furthermore, does he not agree that we should restrict the privilege of entry and of easy access to the Strangers' Gallery to the nationals of those countries which grant similar advantages to our nationals in their Parliaments?

No, I would not agree. I think that the education of people in the practice of democracy should be offered to those who do not practise it as well as to those who do. I would have thought that we should not now cut down the facilities we are providing for embassies and high commissions, provided that we can ensure that the public have their fair share.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman received from his own side of the House representations from Members with constituencies in London, about the immense shortage of tickets for members of the public who apply to their Members, who may be five or six months or more in arrear with their lists?

Yes, I have indeed, but this does not affect morning sittings at all. It affects the fact that we have got—though it varies from debate to debate—increased public interest in listening to our debates.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question has nothing to do with morning sittings?

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that in order to get more of the public in, we should cut out visitors from overseas, there is here a balance which has been established, and I should like a lot more evidence before I could agree to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion. I will certainly discuss this point with the Services Committee—an all-party Committee—to see whether we agree that there is a case for cutting back what we have available for people from overseas.

asked the Lord President of the Council if, in view of the detrimental effect on health of the long hours spent by Members of Parliament in the Commons building, he will make provision for a health room, with some gymnasic apparatus, relaxators, and health lamps to enable Members of Parliament to keep fit.

As my predecessor said in answer to a Question on 22nd June, 1966, there is no space in the Palace of Westminster for providing facilities for Members to take physical exercise. However, there is a case for such facilities being provided and this will certainly be looked at in relation to the plans for the proposed new Parliamentary building.—[Vol. 730, c. 579–80.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that even quite modest provision of this kind would be welcomed, particularly by younger Members who complain about the enervating atmosphere and lack of facilities for exercise here? Perhaps even my right hon. Friend himself might like to limber up before some of his confrontations with his more spirited right hon. Friends?

This is something I might consider, though there are different ways to limber up for spiritual contest.

Is not most of this physical effort done by the Labour Party in its own committee rooms?

Does my right hon. Friend recall that these facilities for physical ex- Ercise—chest expansion and so forth—were provided some time ago and, as a result, because of the exhaustion produced among Members, attendances in the Chamber were actually affected?

I was not aware that all facilities were provided; I knew that some were provided of a somewhat occasional kind.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will seek to ensure that in advertising vacancies and making appointments of professional staff to the House of Commons Library, more emphasis is placed on the value of a professional qualification in librarianship.

I have been asked to reply.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Social Security what plans she now has for revising the system of family allowances.

asked the Minister of Social Security when she intends to arrange and implement plans for improved family allowances in respect of families whose income is below the basic level laid down by the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

asked the Minister for Social Security if she will now make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's intentions for dealing with the problem of child poverty.

I would refer the hon. Members to my replies to Questions on this subject on 21st November.—[Vol. 736, c. 929–31.]

Has the right hon. Lady never heard of the heart grown sick by hope deferred? Would not the best plan be to increase the payment that could be made to lower-paid workers, who constitute in a very real sense the new poor, while leaving the present system of Income Tax allowances unchanged?

This is a very complicated matter, and efforts are being made to find a proper solution so that we shall get rid of poverty among children everywhere.

Last Monday, the right hon. Lady told the House that she was studying the inquiry into family circumstances but that the report would not be published till May or June. Why should there be this long delay, and does she intend to take action before publication of the report?

The full report has not yet come to me; in other words, we have to wait till all the work is done on the report. But I have already told the House of what I regarded as the most important information brought forward from the study of these families in order that we might use it in our study of how best to help the poorest in the country.

Will my right hon. Friend do her best to speed up the examination of the whole subject so that any proposed overhaul of the family allowances scheme, which would be greatly welcomed by many Members on this side, could come into operation at about the time of the Budget?

I assure my hon. Friend that no one is more deeply concerned than the Government or myself about this, and we are dealing with it as urgently as possible.

Could the right hon. Lady give us information on two points: are any special factors being disclosed in relation to this problem, such as bad housing or unstable families; second, is any information coming to her from the local authorities indicating special aspects of the problem in different areas, particularly the big cities?

From the report itself we have the information about financial needs. The other social needs on which the hon. Gentleman has touched are matters on which also we are expecting a great deal of information. Not only my Department but everyone concerned with family endowment in its widest aspects is concerned with this whole study, and all of us are giving a great deal of attention to these matters.

asked the Minister of Social Security what was the total amount of Selective Employment Tax collected in the period 5th September, 1966, to 1st January, 1967.

The total amount paid into the Exchequer on account of Selective Employment Tax up to 1st January, 1967, was £320·4 million.

Will not the Minister agree that the collection of this enormous amount of taxation from the nation's industry has not succeeded in its supposed purpose of shaking people out from services into manufacturing industry, it is creating tremendous hardship, and it will result in bankruptcies among many small firms?

I do not agree with the point the hon. Gentleman makes, but these questions are not for my Department. My Department merely collects the money. Responsibility for the economic and other aspects lies with other Ministers.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she is aware that Mr. W. R. Walker of Huntingdon, who received injuries from gunshot of the right arm and the scalp in the First World War while on active service and was badly gassed, has received only a lump sum interim payment of £220 12s., and that his condition has worsened with age; and whether she will take steps to have the case reopened with a view to ensuring that Mr. Walker receives the pension to which he is entitled and back-payments thereof.

Mr. Walker was examined again as recently as 12th January. The injuries to his scalp and right arm, which were found to be causing no disablement on his discharge, are still assessed at less than 20 per cent. Compensation for this degree of disablement is paid by way of a gratuity, not a pension, and no question of arrears arises. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that Mr. Walker's chest trouble, for which he first claimed in 1964, is unrelated to gassing or any other factor of his 1914 war service.

Does it not appear that this gentleman is being penalised because he waited till he was advanced in years and found that the injuries had caused him a great deal of trouble before making a claim? Will the hon. Gentleman consider the matter afresh, and very sympathetically?

We are always willing sympathetically to consider any claim for war pension. I do not accept a word that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. It is very difficult to discuss these problems across the Floor at Question Time. As he knows, I am always available to Members, and I shall discuss it with him if he so desires.

asked the Minister of Social Security if she is aware that her personal message to retired people, in the form of a newspaper advertisement, was inaccurate and misleading to pensioners who are in receipt of income other than retirement pension or other National Insurance benefits, such as those who receive maintenance payments; and what action she will take.

If my message about supplementary pensions was to be effective, it had to be short and simple. I am sorry that a constituent of the hon. Member should have been misled, but the message did advise readers to get the guide and claim form S.P.1 and in this leaflet the position about maintenance payments is clearly stated.

Is it not wrong for the right hon. Lady to issue messages in the Press which are totally inaccurate? She said in her message that

"Up to £2 of any part-time earnings will be ignored. So will at least £1 of other income …"

No, I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman's constituent. The advertisement clearly stated,

"I cannot of course tell you all about the scheme here. But you can easily find out more by getting the guide and claim form S.P.1 ".

asked the Minister of Social Security (1) what is the approximate annual cost of the sickness benefits, supplementary benefits, and any other payments from public funds to persons suffering from chronic or occasional bronchial disorders;

I have information only about days for which sickness benefit is claimed, and the latest figures are for the 53 weeks from 1st June, 1964, to 5th June, 1965, in which the estimated number of days of incapacity attributed to bronchitis was 36½million, and the cost in sickness benefit was about £26 million.

asked the Minister of Social Security how much would be needed to restore retirement pensions to the position they had relative to those in industry when the last pension increase was made.

I regret that insufficient material is available about the many and diverse occupational pension schemes in industry to allow such comparisons to be made.

Is the Minister frightened to give that comparison, because have not the pensions deteriorated relative to those of industry more during that period than in any similar period since 1945?

No, Sir. If the information were available I should be delighted to give it, but the hon. Gentleman must know of the great variety of occupational pension schemes in this country, and he will also know that some of these pensions—perhaps for many thousands of people—are of a miserable a mount.