asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the total amount of Treasury deposit receipts outstanding at 30th June, 1941; the amount that have been converted into long-term investments by the banks and the securities into which they have been converted and the interest paid thereon;

(2) whether, in view of the many hundreds of millions of Treasury deposit receipts that have been converted by the banks into long-term securities carrying interest at 2½ or 3 per cent., he will confer with the banking interests concerned with a view to a reduction in interest being made in this connection; and whether he has estimated the amount by which Income Tax could be reduced if the interest which was permitted was not to exceed 1 per cent?

The amount of Treasury deposit receipts outstanding on 30th June, 1941, was £519,000,000. The amount converted was £142,000,000, and the securities into which they were converted were National War Bonds carrying 2½ per cent. interest and Savings Bonds carrying 3 per cent. As stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend on 7th May, my right hon. Friend sees no reason to make any change in the existing arrangements. With reference to the last part of Question No. 50, no precise estimate can be given.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the result of this conversion is to put a burden on the tax-payers-in-perpetuity? Why is it that they have to bear this burden if it is a part of interest in the banks which is really cost less credit and is not subscribed for by the banks?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he realises the discontent caused by inequalities in the assessments for war damage, namely, a bungalow in Bilston cost £350, rate £9, Schedule A £18, is asked to pay £1 16s.; another in Wednesbury cost £625, rate £14, Schedule A £21, with allowance of £5 5s. for repairs, is assessed at £1 11s. 6d.; and will he consider a more equitable arrangement?

I would remind my hon. Friend that, although it was recognised that there may be anomalies in individual cases between the Schedule A values of different properties, it was considered essential in the circumstances of the present time to base the contribution on figures which are readily available. He will recall that in moving the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend explained that the Schedule A basis has been adopted on the ground that it provides, by and large, a substantial and adequate contribution from property owners as a whole towards the payments to be made in respect of war damage.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in order to save filling up of returns, he will take the necessary steps whereby a captain or commander in the Royal Navy, a field officer in the Army, or a squadron-leader in the Royal Air Force, can certify expenditure up to an amount not exceeding £50?

I am anxious to eliminate all unnecessary formalities, but I do not think I could accept so general a proposal. The question of delegation of financial powers within Departments is constantly under review, and if my hon. Friend will send me any suggestions for the simplification or elimination of specific returns, I will see that they are examined by the Departments concerned.

I would like to thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for that answer, but if this suggestion is not acceptable or workable, would he think of some scheme by which the incessant filling-up of forms for comparatively small amounts can be eliminated?

I cannot go further than I have done in my reply, which was to the effect that I am anxious to do what is possible, but that Departments naturally have a considerable power of delegation, and that if there are any suggestions which my hon. Friend wishes to make, I will be glad to pass them on. The suggestion in the Question is one which I cannot understand.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the recently constituted Agriculture Improvement Council for Scotland, consisting of 13 members, does not contain one member of the veterinary profession, despite the fact that the profession is represented on the parallel body constituted for England and Wales; and that animal farming is proportionately more important in Scotland than in England?

The composition of the Scottish Agricultural Improvement Council is as follows: —

• The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, who is Chairman.
• Three members of the governing bodies of the Agricultural Colleges who are also practical farmers.
• Three senior members of the teaching staff of the Agricultural Colleges.
• Two members of the Agricultural Research Council.
• One representative of Scottish farm servants.
• Two members of the Department of Agriculture who have technical qualifications.

The Secretary of the Council is an officer of the Department of Agriculture, but he is not, of course, a member of the Council. My right hon. Friend did not give special representation to any particular branch of science but selected persons who were competent generally to discharge the functions for which the Council was set up. The Council will, of course, call into consultation specialists on any subject, veterinary or otherwise, on which they may require information or advice.

While I thank my hon. Friend for information which I have not really asked for—the composition of this Council—does he not recognise that this failure to put any veterinary officer on this body is casting a very serious slur on a distinguished profession, and is also causing a certain amount of alarm to the animal farming community of Scotland, who feel that their interests will not be adequately represented unless there is a veterinary representative on the body?

I do not think so. There are a great many branches of science, including veterinary science, whose advice will be of the highest value and which will be sought. I do not think that the relations of the Council will be adversely affected by its membership not being overcrowded with specialists.