asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what provisions of the Income Tax Acts are individual hardship cases dealt with by him.

It has long been recognised that a power of remitting tax in cases where the full claim cannot be obtained or cannot reasonably be enforced is inherent in the general powers for the management of the revenue which are vested by Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, and Section 1 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890, in the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. In individual cases the Commissioners normally exercise their own discretion, but the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is obtained for any remission of general application. All remissions of tax are reported to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for the information of the Public Accounts Committee.

Why, then, has the right hon. Gentleman just sent me a letter about a constituent aged 83 who has been charged for tax incurred six years ago which was not claimed at the time by the mistake of the Inland Revenue authorities? Why has he told me there is no power in him to remit this claim?

Without knowing off-hand the details of the case which the right hon. Gentleman quotes, the answer is that it is generally the law that there is no power to remit. However, as the House is well aware, during our Debates recently on the Finance Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under pressure from all sides of the House, indicated that certain sections for certain reasons would receive discretionary treatment.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I now resubmit this case to him, and ask him to exercise his discretion upon it?

Would the right hon. Gentleman clearly specify whether the power of remission of tax lies with the Crown or with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I think I have made it quite clear in the rather long answer I have given. It resides, through the Acts I have mentioned, in the Inland Revenue under the control and supervision of the Chancellor of the day. If I may add this, the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain made this quite clear in 1937 in reply to similar questions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much sterling as at 30th June, 1949, did we owe to each of our creditor countries.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 21st September last to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre).

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer was a most unsatisfactory one, and if he cannot give figures for individual countries, will he give the figures for the main area?

We already give the figures for the totals in the Balance of Payments White Paper every six months.

Are the Government considering proposals which have been made in some quarters that, with safeguards to ourselves in the administration of the dollars arising, these credits might be negotiated with the United States?

That is quite a different question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recommendations he has recently received for those connected with the Gold Coast concerning assistance to be given to the mining companies; and when he will be able to give an answer to these recommendations.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was recently asked by the London Advisory Committee of the Gold Coast Chamber of Mines to receive a deputation. Before agreeing to do so, however, he asked the Chairman to submit a statement in writing, and this is still awaited.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why permission was given to the Icelandic Government to raise the recent loans to build ten trawlers, in view of the fact that the British fleet with the projected building will be sufficient or more than sufficient to supply all the fish we need.

I assume the hon. Member is referring to the £1¼ million 4½ per cent. Iceland Sterling Stock, 1960–69, for which applications were invited on 21st July last. Authority was given for the issue of this stock in order to assist Iceland, as an allied country in the sterling area, to modernise its fishing fleet.

Can the Economic Secretary say what Government Departments were consulted before this authority was given, and will he tell the House whether the British Trawler Federation, vitally affected by it, were consulted over its issue?

The Government consult all the appropriate Government Departments in all these cases, but I should have thought that the modernisation of the fishing fleet of a country which is a member both of the sterling area and of O.E.E.C. was a very desirable object.

Would not the hon. Gentleman also think that the preservation of the livelihood of our own people was equally important, and will he answer my question: which Government Departments were consulted specifically—was the Minister of Agriculture consulted; and secondly, were the British Trawler Federation consulted?

If the Iceland fishing fleet becomes more efficient it should be able to sell its produce here at lower prices and, therefore, the livelihood of our own people will be assisted.

That is no answer to my question.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to what extent he estimates that the present arrangements for an increased supply of scientists from the universities is sufficient to meet the increasing demands which arise from the programme of Colonial development and which will arise if Great Britain is to co-operate adequately with the United States of America in the implementation of President Truman's Fourth Point; and what collaboration there is to be with the United States of America in the training of their scientists in our universities or the training of British scientists in the United States universities.

The Report of the Committee on Scientific Manpower recommended that the annual pre-war output of scientists from the universities should be doubled by 1955. That Committee, in framing their estimates of the future demand for scientists, took account of the needs of the Colonial Service. The pre-war numbers of university students in science and technology were nearly doubled by 1947–48 and numbers have continued to rise since then. I am satisfied that no greater expansion would have been practicable without a sacrifice of quality. As to the second part of the Question, arrangements have just been concluded for sending 50 British scientists and technicians to the United States with the assistance of the Economic Co-operation Administration for two years of graduate study.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind with his colleague the Minister of Education the importance of President Truman's offer in the fourth point of his inaugural address to assist in colonial development throughout the world; and is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we have the necessary scientific strength to put into force any demands that may come from that quarter?

Certainly, we shall bear that in mind. As my answer indicates, we are fully alive to the need for building up the number of scientists for this kind of work.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these 50 graduates are going to American universities or to institutes of technology such as that in Massachusetts?

Not without notice.

In view of the very urgent need for scientists and the fact that many of the intelligent men are Communists and fellow-travellers, can we take it that no witch hunt will be directed against them?

The hon. Member can take it that we shall regard the men as scientists and not as politicians.

Very sensible.

Can my right hon. Friend consult with the Minister of Education on the question of trying to persuade some biologists to go back into the schools to teach biology, because in past years this vicious circle has resulted in not having sufficient good scientific biologists to send to the Colonies and other places?

I think that that question should be more properly directed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, who I am quite sure, will take note of the point which has just been made.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that as a result of a dispute between the War Damage Commission and the War Department over the question of responsibility for compensation to Mr. Appleton, of Meadowcroft, Elloughton, for damage done to property in Fern Grove, Hull, Mr. Appleton is not receiving the 45 per cent. statutory increase on value payments, thus involving him in a loss of £900; and whether, in view of the long time this dispute has continued, he will now consult with the Secretary of State for War, with a view to settling it, so that the full rate of compensation is paid.

I have already written to the hon. Member about this case. The compensation is payable under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, and not under the War Damage Act, 1943. The permitted increase in value payments under the latter Act is not, therefore, payable. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that an offer of compensation under the former Act has been made.

Would not the Financial Secretary agree that there should be equality of treatment as between one property owner and another so that, whether the damage was caused and inflicted by enemy action or by the War Department or, as in this case, by both, there should be equality of compensation?

This is not a War Damage Commission case and, therefore, it is not for me to comment. The hon. Gentleman must direct his questions on this matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many of the surplus books received from the Service Departments for disposal have been returned direct to the publishers for pulping; and what agreements are in existence whereby books not required by the Services shall be so returned.

None, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend look at this point again? Is he aware that during the war certain agreements were made between publishing houses and the Service Departments that the books were supplied to the Forces only on condition that they were returned to the publishers for pulping, and will he inquire whether this is the reason for the leakage of certain books which ought to be coming to His Majesty's Stationery Office?

Where books are surplus they are, in the first instance, offered to the publisher concerned. If he does not want them, a different situation, of course, arises, but we do give the publishers concerned an opportunity to re-buy the books.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider giving a greater discount than 33⅓ per cent. on books from the Service Departments offered to public libraries.

The discounts vary according to the nature and condition of the books and in some cases exceed 33⅓ per cent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the discount in the majority of cases is approximately 33⅓ per cent., and that this is the discount which an ordinary bookseller normally gets on a new book; and does not he think that the discount ought to reach 50 or 60 per cent. in the case of most of these books?

It is higher in some instances, as I have indicated, but His Majesty's Stationery Office must, of course, obtain the best price. If those concerned find that the discount allowed is not enough, I am sure they would say so immediately.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will give Civil Service pensioners the option to receive their pensions monthly or quarterly.

They already have this option, and are so informed when they retire.

Is that option universal?

Yes, Sir. I have a copy of the form here. Those who complete it are asked to say at what intervals they would like payments to be made.

Can they subsequently alter that option, or is it irrevocable?

I do not think so. On the other hand, it would be silly if they were given the opportunity of changing their minds every few weeks.

If there is hardship in cases where a person has to wait three months for money which is paid in arrear, could the option be changed?

Certainly. If an individual concerned asks first for payment to be made quarterly and then finds he prefers it monthly, we are quite willing to pay him monthly.