asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why he spent £140,000 on work in the Palace of Westminster this summer.

Because it is more economical, and more convenient to hon. Members, for as much as possible of the annual programme of essential maintenance and other approved work to be carried out during the Summer Recess.

Did not this work also include such additional features as putting television annunciators into private rooms? Does he justify spending this large sum of money on this Palace when, for example, the school programme has been cut back?

With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is asking the wrong Minister. I did not put in these television annunciators because I thought that they would be a good idea. I was instructed to do so by the House of Commons Services Committee, upon which the right hon. Gentleman's Front Bench is represented.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in a Written Answer to me yesterday, he said that over the past five years nearly £3½ million has been spent on and in this building? Would it not be better if we debated and settled the question of a new Parliamentary building before continuing to tinker with this one?

That is anticipating what is to come. I shall be making a great statement at the end of Questions. Let us hope that the hon. Gentleman will support me in what I say.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the assurance that he will get all possible support from this side of the House in whatever he does to improve the working conditions of hon. Members?

I am obliged for that. It looks as if I shall need some support.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will give an estimate of the cost of the proposed extensions to the employment exchange in Rugby.

About £35,000 including the site.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer will give a lot of satisfaction to my constituents? Will he say whether it includes the new Social Security offices which it is planned to put into that building?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what further studies he has made of the overall effect of the building licensing procedure contained the Building Control Act, 1966, and the Regulations made thereunder; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he proposes to introduce legislation to repeal the Building Control Act, 1966.

After considering the prospective demand on the industry, I suspended building licensing from 20th November, 1968, for an indefinite period. I do not propose to introduce legislation to repeal the Building Control Act, 1966, because it may have to be used again.

As in the last three years there has been just a tiny amount of building work which has been refused a licence out of an enormous potential amount, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the whole licensing procedure is a bureaucratic nuisance and that it wastes industry's time as well as a lot of public money?

I would not agree with that. The reasons for the Act coming into being were fully debated in 1966. I do not go back on what was said then. As Minister of the day, however, I saw that they were not needed at that moment, and I withdrew them. I should have thought that there would be excitement and delight among right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

If licensing played any significant part in economic demand management, why is the right hon. Gentleman now suspending it? It it played a part, why suspend it now? If it did not play a part, why not repeal the whole Act?

The hon. Gentleman is getting confused with his own Question. The reasons why the Act came into being were debated in 1966. As newly in charge of the Department, I decided, in the light of events as I saw them at that moment, that they were not necessary, arid I suspended them.

As the right hon. Gentleman has had time to think about this since I last raised it with him, will he now evaluate what, in the Prime Minister's words, was the direct impact on the balance of payments which we were promised that this Measure would have?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to ask the Prime Minister. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend is capable of answering any Questions that the hon. Gentleman puts to him.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he is aware of the concern in the con- struction industry at the delay by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in producing their reports on the wage structures of the building and civil engineering industries; and what action he has taken to expedite the report.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what further representations he has received from both sides of the construction industry regarding the reference of the wage structures of the building and civil engineering industries to the National Board for Prices and Incomes; and what reply he has sent.

The Reports have now been published, and as to the next steps I have nothing to add to the statements by myself on 6th November [Vol. 772, c. 895]; by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary on 15th November [Vol. 773, c. 761]; by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity on 28th November [Vol. 774, c. 185.]

Is the Minister not aware of the annoyance caused in that the Government wasted six months before making the reference?

Oh, yes. I know of the concern in the industry, and I am aware that it is disturbed about the delay. The Report is now to hand. I am sure that it has been read, and there are discussions going on between both sides of the industry and the Government on this very important matter.

Is the Minister aware that the Government have created this situation by the delay of a year? Will he now give an assurance that they will not make the situation worse by any further intervention?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no delay in making certain decisions known. My right hon. Friend, the First Secretary, will no doubt make a statement to the House at the appropriate time.

Apart from the Government's utterly represensible delays in the matter which have caused much of the trouble, may I ask whether it is true that the Prices and Incomes Board's computer broke down in the white heat of the technological revolution?

I have no idea what happened to the P.I.B. machinery. All I know is that the ultimate result is before both sides of industry and there are important discussions going on and we shall hear the results of these as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now publish the second and third Reports of the Mann Committee; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on his policy regarding his Department's direct labour force, in the light of the Reports of the Mann Committee.

A joint examination of the work of selected depôts has just been completed, and I am discussing with the trade unions the results of this examination and the further steps which should now be taken. It would be premature for me to make any further statement, or to publish the Reports at this stage.

When will the House be told what the third Report of the Mann Committee contains? Will the Minister confirm or deny that he is considering making up to half of his Department's direct labour force redundant?

The last part is not true. The Mann Committee reported to me as Minister and I regarded that information as confidential. I have acted upon sample surveys taken by the Mann Committee by establishing an inquiry into one of my important depôts. Based upon the result of that inquiry, in which I am taking the trade unions with me step by step, I shall come to certain decisions. When that is done, I will inform the House. But it must be for me to decide.

This is not very satisfactory. Surely the Minister will confirm that it seems likely that this Report will show that there is a 25 per cent. difference in productivity between direct labour and private enterprise, and therefore we need a full statement.

The Mann Committee took sample surveys only and came to certain conclusions. I was not prepared to accept the Report of the Mann Committee at face value. This had to be tested and proved. Therefore, I set up my own investigation over a wide area of my Ministry's activities, in conjunction with the trade unions. Based on the results of that inquiry, I will be in a stronger position to say whether the Mann Committee was right. It does not follow that, because the Mann Committee has issued a report, it is right.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has had representations from M.P.B.W. workers in Rosyth dockyard on the question of redundancies, and can he give an assurance that everything possible will be done to preserve jobs in this sector, bearing in mind that it is a development area?

I understand this. This is why I am handling it in the way that I have described. We are dealing with men's livelihoods. Some men have been working for my Ministry for 30 to 40 years. We cannot glibly say that we shall sack 25 per cent. I am not that kind of Minister.

Is the Minister aware that in March he said that 50 per cent. of the maintenance was done by his direct labour department and in July that 40 per cent. was done by his direct labour department? Does that mean that there has alreday been a run-down, or is there some other reason?

My Department's record on maintenance is very good. The exact proportion, whether it is 60 per or 50 per cent., I cannot give off the cuff. All I can say is that it varies. A considerable proportion is already done by contractors, and some of those are very inefficient.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public correspondence with the President of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers regarding the increase in Selective Employment Tax and certain firm price building contracts.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers regarding the Government's decision not to reimburse the extra cost of the increased rate of Selective Employment Tax to those contractors whose firm price contracts were adversely affected by the increase; and what reply he has sent.

Copies of my correspondence with the President of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers on the Government's decision not to reimburse any of the increased rate of Selective Employment Tax which effected firm price building contracts have been placed in the Library.

Does the Minister agree that this correspondence shows that S.E.T. is seriously affecting the industry? Will he now tell us what he has achieved for the industry rather than about representations and what he said on their behalf?

The industry's relationship with my Ministry is very good. Output is going up. S.E.T. does not seem to have made any difference.

Does the Minister agree that it would take a genius to keep up with the tax changes introduced by the Government, that it is difficult for those estimating to take into account what the Government will do, and that this puts the whole business of firm price contracts at risk?

It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman is not a genius, because he does not understand what is going on.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what evidence his Department has submitted regarding the effect of Selective Employment Tax on the construction industry to the Reddaway Inquiry; and whether he will publish it.

I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Members for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) on 29th April, 1968.—[Vol. 763. c. 767.]

As no progress has been made, can some indication be given to the House when the Report is likely to be produced and when the Report on the construction industry will be dealt with?

The industry is not making these representations to me and it is not complaining at present. The Reddaway Committee is in being to receive the industry's point of view. I take it for granted that the industry has written to the Reddaway Committee. If I can find out when the Report will come forward I will let the hon. Gentleman and the House know.

Does the Minister think it sensible that the construction industry should still be treated as a service industry rather than a manufacturing industry? He keeps talking about output from the industry.

I have great respect for the industry. A great part is manufacturing and another part should be in another category. This has been an anomaly which I have discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is why the Reddaway Committee is considering the matter.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a further statement on his policy on capital investment in plant and machinery on construction sites in the construction industry.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 17th June.—[Vol. 766, c. 687.]

Is the Minister aware that the Board of Trade is still refusing to pay grants on winter building equipment such as wood scaffolding and shuttering? Will he use his influence to get these items through to make the industry more efficient?

I want to be helpful—[Interruption.]—yes, I do. Whether the Board of Trade is entitled by law to impose any lower limit for administrative or financial reasons has been the subject of litigation. I understand that the matter is now under appeal, so it is, therefore, sub judice.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the subject of the lighting of building sites after the change to all year round British Standard Time.

However one sets the clock, at the height of winter it is impossible for a building craftsman—particularly in an indoor trade—to work a full day without artificial light for part of the time. One of the main features of my Ministry's winter building campaign has been to persuade contractors to invest in efficient site lighting equipment to improve their productivity. British Standard Time merely emphasises the need.

Is the Minister aware that British Standard Time is causing work to be lost in the most productive first hours of the day—a statement with which he agreed in his speech at Bristol? Is he also aware that lighting is impossible on many sites such as motorways and those operated by small firms, where it is impossible to have lighting in all circumstances?

The hon. Gentleman knows that before British Standard Time was introduced, the industry, in common with others, was asked for its point of view. Marginally, the construction industry came down in favour of the introduction of B.S.T.

It did not.

It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying that it did not, because it did. We have a list of all those who approved it. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that there will be a review at the end of this winter and I should expect the industry's views to be passed to him and to the House.

Does not the present situation mean that construction workers arrive at 8 a.m., and either stand around in the dark for an hour doing nothing or work in possibly dangerous or icy conditions, or they arrive later and thus help to swell the traffic jams?

What I find extraordinary is that these remarks should come from the hon. Gentleman and others behind him, yet the industry, which has a close relationship with the Ministry and knows where to make complaints, has not made representations on this subject.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what amount of public money has been spent on Caerphilly Castle since it was taken over by his Department.

Up to 31st October, 1968, £130,649.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Caerphilly are profoundly grateful for the restoration of this magnificent castle, which is situated in the heart of the town and is a source of great civic pride? Will he, therefore, consider entering into arrangements with the local authority to enable the residents in that area to have free access to their castle?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his remarks about my ancient monuments division. I think that it has done and is doing a magnificent job. Caerphilly is another example of its work. Caerphilly Castle is rather different from any other castle that I have seen in that, as my hon. Friend says, it is situated in the heart of the town. I am willing to discuss with the local authority whether we can come to some arrangement about the townsfolk having special entry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dedication of the men employed on this work and on other ancient monuments within the purview of his Ministry? Will my right hon. Friend note also that these men are all employed as direct labour? Will he, from time to time, at least hand out some sort of praise to these people who are doing a first-rate job of work?

I am grateful to both my hon. Friends for giving me an opportunity once again to say that this branch of my Ministry is respected and much admired by the vast majority of people in this country for the wonderful job it does.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will ensure that the functions of the National Consultative Council for the Building and Civil Engineering Industries, sponsored by his department, do not overlap with those of the Economic Development Committee for the Building and Civil Engineering Industries; and whether he will make a statement.

Yes Sir, there is in fact a clear distinction between them. The N.C.C. considers problems which concern the Government and industry jointly. The E.D.C.s are independent bodies whose purpose is to promote efficiency and to forecast supply and demand.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the old world courtesy of his reply. Will he consider looking at this matter a little more deeply, because people are represented on both committees, and perhaps some costs could be saved if the functions could be combined.

When I became Minister I found that my consultative machinery was very bad. As far as I could judge, it did nothing except meet and have a cup of tea. I reorganised the machinery. We now try to do an effective job, which the industry is asking us to do, and the industry itself has welcomed the changes that I have made.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether the Conservator of Wimbledon Common, appointed by him under Section 12 of the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act, 1871, was present at the meeting of the Conservators which approved the tipping of soil and other materials on part of Wimbledon Common near the top of Roehampton Lane; and whether his appointee agreed with this decision of the Conservators.

This tipping of soil on Wimbledon Common was accepted by the Conservators in accordance with their obligations under the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act, 1966. The site for the tipping was agreed by the Conservators at a meeting from which the Conservator appointed by me was unavoidably absent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hope is that if his representative had been present he would have opposed this proposal? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the Conservators had failed in their duty to safe- guard the common? Will my right hon. Friend ask them to see what can be done to repair the severe damage done by this irresponsible tipping on Wimbledon Common? Is my right hon. Friend further aware——

Order. That is enough to be aware of.

My appointee is not a delegate, and does not need to come back to me for instructions. Secondly, as I understand the General Powers Act, the Conservators' discretion is limited to agreeing to the position of the tipping. They could not absolve themselves of the responsibility of agreeing to tipping of some kind, and the position was the only question at issue.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this tipping has done a great deal of damage to the Common, and also to the rare plants on it? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that many of us think it is his duty to ensure that the Conservators appointed by him protect the interests of the public?

If there is anything that I can do to help, I shall. There is one particular individual whom we appointed. I am afraid that he was not there, for other reasons, but I am told that if he had been he would have voted against it, but the proposal would still have been carried.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will take steps to integrate and recite the various buildings used by the department of Social Services, the Department of Employment and Productivity and Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes at Hartlepool, having regard to the comprehensive central area redevelopment in the town and the need to reduce the inconvenience to the public and to improve conditions for the staffs of the present offices.

My Ministry is planning to erect a new building on a site in Surtees Street, to provide an integrated local office for the Department of Health and Social Security. The Department of Employment and Productivity and the Inland Revenue Tax Office are already accommodated in a satisfactory Crown Building near the proposed Civic Centre.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that I appreciate his cooperation, and that of his officers? In view of the amalgamation of the Hartlepools and redistribution of boundaries, will my right hon. Friend make available to me an opportunity for another discussion, so that the fullest amount of integration, which I am sure he desires, may be carried out in the end?

I shall be prepared to see my hon. Friend at any time on any subject.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proposals he has for reducing the amount of statistical information required by his Department to he submitted by building contractors; and whether he will make a statement.

None, Sir. The information collected by my Ministry is kept to the minimum and is barely adequate for the many purposes for which it is needed.

Why is it that so many figures are required from the building industry, in some cases the same figures by three different Government Departments, as is made clear in Appendix 7 of the Estimates Committee's Report?

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, that there is duplication. The Government's statistical services are being more fully integrated so that such duplication is minimised, and the construction industry will share in this reorganisation.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the statistics produced by industry in general, including the building industry, are far fewer than those produced in many other advanced industrial nations, such as the United States of America?

I would not know. I am not qualified to talk about the posi- tion in other countries. We get a lot of information from industry. I understand that there are fears that too much is being asked of them. I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite in particular, who continually press me for more information, that the only way to get it is to ask other people for it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that industry will appreciate anything he does to cut down the amount of statistics required, particularly by co-ordinating them from other Government Departments? The more he asks for, the more inaccurate it gets.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on his policy regarding the recommendations of the Fourth Report of the Estimates Committee of the House of Commons entitled, The Public Building Programme in the United Kingdom.

I would ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the Departmental Observations on the Report.

Is the right hon. Gentleman carrying out a complete reappraisal of the annual accounting procedures for building programmes, as recommended by the Committee in its paragraph 71?

I cannot answer that off the cuff, but I am prepared to write to the hon. Gentleman and give him full details of what my Department is doing in that sphere. The observations to which I referred will be published early in the New Year, because they concern other Government Departments as well, and have far-reaching implications.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made a start on implementing Recommendation No. 4 of the Report. to the effect that

"A regular check on the amount of space occupied by the staff of Government departments should be carried out in as many as possible of the larger centres of Government activity outside London"?

Our record of staff dispersal is better than that of any previous Government.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what consideration he has given to the representations of the Royal Institute of British Architects regarding the value of building work entering the production thawing stage; and what action he has taken in that regard.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on the level of design work for building entering the production drawing stage, details of which he has received.

The latest R.I.B.A. survey showed that work in the drawing offices of private architects fell by about 12 per cent. between the first and second quarters of 1968. Work in local authority drawing offices fell by 2 per cent. in the four months to the end of May, 1968, compared with the four months to the end of January. There are no equivalent indicators for other public authorities, civil engineers and contractors. These figures are not conclusive evidence of trends in the industry, and the consensus of other indicators suggests reasonable prospects for 1969.

Is it not most disturbing that the R.I.B.A. survey shows that the figures have dropped substantially be low anything since 1954?

The trouble is that these surveys are not really conclusive, in the sense that they are concerned only with private architects, and the work given to them by public bodies by the use of outside consultants. The same survey shows a small increase during the second quarter in new commissions with a marked rise in private work other than housing, of 11 per cent., and this continued a trend evident for the last nine months.

Why does the Ministry confuse the issue by giving local authority figures in four-monthly periods, and private industry figures for each quarter? As I understand it, that is what the Minister said. Surely in this context the estimates of building work in 1969 are irrelevant? The fall in the level of design work this year is disturbing, and is likely to be reflected in the amount of building, not in 1969, but in 1970.

I have answered the Questions put down by both hon. Members, in the form which I think is proper. The fact that the Answer does not suit the hon. Gentleman is not of too much concern to me. This industry constantly complains about future trends. The Confederation of British Industry has said that there will be a fairly strong rise in investment in building over the next 12 months, and the Board of Trade's investment intention survey also points to a strong recovery in private investment in 1969.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the increase in output of building operatives employed by contractors in Great Britain in 1968.

I have not yet estimated the increase in output per operative in 1968, but I think it likely that it will be higher than the long-term trend of 4 per cent. for the second year running.

Would the Minister say, therefore, why he felt that it was necessary for his right hon. Friends to obstruct an interim increase of 3·7 per cent. which is less than his estimate for the building trade operatives' increase in October?

I suggest that the hon. Member reads the P.I.B. Report. If he does he will get some information there. Some of the increase each year is the result of better management, more mechanisation, bigger contracts, better tendering procedures, and so on. It is not necessarily a measure of an increase in the productivity of labour.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the estimate of his Department seems to be different from the estimate of the P.I.B.? Will he indicate why there is a difference between the two estimates of output and productivity in the building industry?

The figures that I have given up to last year have been published year by year since 1945. The output of the building and construction industries has risen every year. This year it will rise by another 4 per cent., I think, and I expect it to rise next year by between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. This happens to be the view that the Department holds, and we have said so to the P.I.B.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on the Report of the Winterbottom Committee on training for, and the carrying out of, maintenance work.

This Report is now being printed and will be published in January.

As a result of the publication of this Report, is it intended to publish later a simple booklet for the guidance of smaller firms, as was at one time suggested as a result of the activities of the Committee?

When I publish the Report I am willing and prepared not only to give it wide circulation but also to break down that part which concerns special aspects of the industry, and to do all that I can to bring home to those interested the important conclusions of the Report.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many closed-circuit television sets have been installed in the Commons part of the Palace of Westminster as annunciators of business in the debating Chamber; and at what cost to public funds.

387 sets have been installed at a cost of about £20,000.

I am sure that the whole House is most impressed by that figure, but how many machines did the 387 sets replace? Secondly, as the figure is approaching a ratio of one per Member, how many sets are for the use of Ministers, and perhaps in even smaller rooms?

The hon. Member was not here at the beginning of Question Time when I said—and I repeat it, because it is worth repeating—that I did not put these sets in because I liked doing it but because I was instructed to do so by the Services Committee of this House, of which several hon. Members opposite are very prominent members.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter is not something within the discretion of his Department; neither is it in the discretion of the Government? This is a conscious act of a Committee of the Legislature—a Select Committee of this House—and he should not be held accountable in this place for such expenditure.

I could not have said that better myself.

Is it not nevertheless within the Minister's competence to see that some of these television sets work—because an awful lot do not?

Incidentally, they are provided by a private enterprise firm. I think that I shall get my directly employed labour to have a look at them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these sets are so wired that they could be used for a closed circuit transmission of the proceedings of this House? Will he see that they are used for this purpose?

That possibility frightens the life out of me. The old machine annunciators were virtually worn out. I understand that when the Services Committee considered the matter it was told that it would be cheaper to replace them by a television system than by a modern type of machine system. The present television system also provides much more flexibility in operation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear, notwithstanding his earlier Answer, that responsibility for recommending expenditure lies solely with Ministers and that he is not entitled to shelter behind the recommendations of a Select Committee?

With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he was part of this new democratic procedure of the Services Committee. The first that I knew about the television sets was when I received instructions from Mr. Speaker to put them in.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will announce the name of his Department's representative on the Metrication Board.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether his Department will be represented on the Metrication Board.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is considering the membership of the Metrication Board. the interests of the construction industry will be well represented.

Does not the Minister agree that the construction industry is already in great difficulty due to the delay in setting up this Board, which has a four-year programme in which to work? Will he bring pressure to bear upon his right hon. Friend to get this Board set up as soon as possible?

The construction industry will be one of the first to go metric. It has a fine record. I agree that it is important that the Board should be set up, and we want the best people on it. I can give an assurance that the construction industry will be well and truly represented on it.

Can the Minister give an assurance that the decision to go metric was not taken without a feasibility study, and that if so his Department took part in it?

In what we have done we have carried the industry with us. It has taken the initiative. My Ministry will be going metric in its design work next year. I pay tribute to the industry for playing an important and progressive part in this matter.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the effects upon the construction industry of the economic measures announced by Her Majesty's Government on Friday, 22nd November.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a further statement about the output of the construction industry in 1969.

It is too early to estimate the effect of the measures on output in 1969 but it may be to put the increase nearer 4 per cent. than 5 per cent. The effect on construction costs will I think be very small.

Cannot the Minister give us any idea of the effect of bridging finance and loans to builders? Will he take this opportunity publicly to deny the suggestion that the price of houses might be raised by as much as £80, and give his own estimate?

I would not give an estimate about the price of houses off the cuff. It would have to be carefully considered before any such estimate was made. The view of my Ministry is that there may be a small increase in the cost of construction of about per cent. overall, due to the increases in Purchase Tax and the new deposits on imports.

Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the fact that import deposits on plywood and other timbers may have a very bad effect on the building industry? Is he aware that, while many of us on this side of the House are in favour of import controls, we think that they should be selective and intelligent controls, and that the imposition of import deposits on plywood in particular is not likely to be very helpful to the construction industry?

There is to be a debate on this matter and I assume that in Committee there will be a chance for Amendments to be put down to the Bill to exempt various commodities from its provisions. As I understand it, raw and sawn timber will be exempt from import deposits but planed plywood and particle board will be subject to the deposits. What the overall effect will be I cannot say, except that I have had no representations from the timber people, although the Board of Trade probably has had.

What estimate has the Minister made of the effect of these economic measures upon the construction industry in Scotland?

Without notice I cannot make an estimate. I have said that there will be a small increase in the cost of construction of about ¼ per cent. overall. How much applies to Scotland I have not a clue.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is his policy regarding the employment of building workers by public bodies by direct labour on London building sites; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is his policy regarding the employment of building workers by public bodies by direct labour; and whether he will make a statement.

It is a management responsibility to make the most advantageous arrangements. So far as my own Department is concerned, I consider that there is a place for both directly employed labour and contractors.

Can the Minister state what place he considers the Southwark direct labour department has in view of the fact that it has overspent nearly £1 million on the North Peckham development site, for which the Minister himself is partly responsible?

The hon. Member is asking the wrong Minister the wrong question at the wrong time. Otherwise he is in order. He should address his question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that quite a campaign is being waged on this question by Aims of Industry, which is reflected in the questions being put by hon. Members opposite?

I know about Aims of Industry, of course. It is always opposed to direct labour. The tragedy in this argument is that, by imputation, nothing is good about directly employed labour and everything is good about contractors —when the truth is that there is a bit of bad about both.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public works department in Sheffield has made a profit of £14 million in the last 12 years and that the Department asked Aims of Industry and Mr. Malcolm Hoppé to investigate their hooks, and that when they did, they found nothing wrong and had to accept that this was genuine profit obtained by tendering in competition with private enterprise?

I accept that and I think that it confirms what I said, that there is a great deal of good about directly employed labour, where—this is the key—management is efficient.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that he is the wrong Minister in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why, if he cannot be questioned on this matter, did he make a public statement in The Times on this subject in October?

I did not make a public statement on that matter. The question which his hon. Friend asked related to the period when I was a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and I referred the whole matter to the National Building Agency. That is the only part that I played in that. I am now the Minister of Public Building and Works—and a darned sight better Minister than some of them on that side would be.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he is satisfied that the firms he employs to do the office cleaning at Lambeth Bridge House act in conformity with the Fair Wages Resolution; and if he will make a statement.

Compliance with the Fair Wages Resolution passed by this House on the 14th October, 1946, is a condition of our contract for the cleaning of Lambeth Bridge House. I have not received any complaints or representations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to what appears to be sound information, at least one of the firms is not operating the Fair Wages Resolution? If I give him particulars, will he look into that?

I certainly will and I will have the matter thoroughly investigated: I give my right hon. Friend that assurance.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will request the sub-committee of the National Consultative Council, currently studying the registration of builders, to take into account the Phelps Brown Committee's Report.

I have no doubt that the independent inquiry when set up will consider all relevant matter in the Report of the Phelps Brown Committee.

Why, apart from a statement by the Minister's colleague the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, have we not had a statement of Government policy in this matter? Could not the "darned better Minister" himself, in view of the fact that he commissioned this Report jointly, make a public statement for the benefit of this sub-committee?

For the very simple reason that, when Phelps Brown issued the Report, we did the proper thing and supplied it to the industry—both employers and unions. Up to a week or so ago, we had not received any official replies. In a matter like this, it would be wrong for the Government to state a policy without having carried the industry with them.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make an early statement on the progress of the Whitehall Redevelopment Plan, that is to say the Martin and Buchanan proposal; and whether the statement made in the House on 1st November, 1965, still remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Whitehall Redevelopment Plan.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement about the Whitehall Plan.

With permission I will answer these Questions at the end of Question Time, because the Answer is long.

asked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the reduction in coal stocks during the coming winter, giving the figures for distributed and undistributed stocks, respectively.

Depending on weather conditions, coal stocks might fall by about 6 million tons this winter, made up of a fall of perhaps 2½ million tons in undistributed stocks, and a fall of 3½ million tons in distributed stocks.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many miners would be happy if the coal stocks were reduced? Does he agree that, if the policy of the T.U.C. to hold an independent inquiry into the fuel and power industry were carried out, many more miners would be satisfied?

I would agree, of course, that, if we could get the coal stocks reduced, the miners and the economy itself would benefit. This is a question of expanding and holding the market, in which, of course, we are interested and the N.C.B. is very active.

asked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of wastage of manpower in the mining industry in 1969.

While it is not possible to make a precise estimate, I expect that in 1969, wastage from all causes other than redundancy will be rather lower than the figure of about 45,000 estimated by the N.C.B. for 1968.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware—he probably is—that the figures which he has given make nonsense of the estimate in the fuel and power White Paper? Is this not a further example of how the White Paper should be entirely scrapped and replaced with fresh estimates?

It is fair to say that the figure of 35,000 men, to which my hon. Friend refers, was spread over a number of years. We expect that, in the later years of the period covered by the White Paper estimates, we will come closer to the original 35,000 men than we have done this year.