asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the present rate of unemployment in the Hartlepools; and What prospects there are of further industries and expansions in the area.

At mid-July there were 1,278 registered as wholly unemployed in the Hartlepools group of employment exchange areas, a rate of 3·5 per cent. About 1,500 jabs are in prospect. Since I answered a similar Question by my hon. and gallant Friend on 30th March, 1961, several firms have shown interest in going to the Hartlepools area.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I paint out to him that the Hartlepools are now the second worst hit area in the North-East for employment? Can he say what prospects there are in the future, bearing in mind that we have nearly 200 school leavers at the moment, a recession in shipping and the possible withdrawal of the Reserve Fleet? Can my right hon. Friend say what the prospects are of the Americans taking an interest in the area?

There are about 1,500 jobs in prospect. I hope that they will all materialise. If they do, they will certainly improve the prospects in the district.

asked the President of the Board of Trade haw many local authorities in Yorkshire have declined to pay the increased subscription now demanded for Patent Office publications.

Three local authorities in Yorkshire have declined to pay the increased charge.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in other important manufacturing areas, apart from these three, there is resentment against these charges? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that this used to be a free national service, that then charges were imposed and now they have been increased? Can we be reasonably sure that we shall not have further increases in the near future?

This charge put on patent specifications has gone up from £100 to £140 a year. In that period the number of specifications has gone up from 20,000 to 30,000. The ordinary sale price of these specifications would be over £5,000, so I do not think it unreasonable to ask them to pay £140.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what conclusions he has come to in his reconsideration of the difficulties arising from the operation of the Trade Marks Acts; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that the hon. Member is referring to the Answers which I gave to him and to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) on 11th July. Since then, directors of both companies concerned have expressed to officials of my Department their sense of the importance of avoiding any confusion on the part of the public between their respective products. When discussions are complete, I will write to the hon. Member.

I have given a direction that when an application is made for the registration of a mark for non-alcoholic drinks and some similar foodstuffs a search should be made for similar marks registered for such things as drugs, disinfectants and cleaning materials. The converse will also apply.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the decision of Hollins and Company Limited to cease production at Newhouse, what action he is taking to find a new occupant for the factory which will provide work for the women and men displaced.

The Board's regional office is at present negotiating with a prospective new occupant, who will, it is hoped, provide substantially more jobs in this factory than before.

The President of the Board of Trade will be aware that that is good news for those about to lose their work. He will also be aware that the firm likely to take them had already planned a big extension. We are really losing 400 jobs in this area. Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the Board of Trade and with other bodies interested in the bringing of industry to Scotland to get them to work together more closely so that when big prospective industries are on the scene we know about them quickly and start them?

I am certainly anxious to get more firms to come into this part of Scotland. My regional officers are working as hard as they can on this, and I will do all I can to support them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many motor cars were exported in the first six months of 1961; how this total compares with the same period in 1960; in which overseas markets this decline has mainly occurred; and what estimate he has made of the prospects for improvement in the second half of this year.

175,306 new cars were exported during the first six months of 1961 compared with 342,415 during the same period last year. The main markets in which a decline occurred were the U.S.A. and Canada and South Africa. While there may be some improvement, exports in the second half of this year are likely to remain well below the record levels achieved in the first half of 1960.

Are not these figures very alarming and is not this something like the worst situation which we have had for about eight years in exports? Is not the Chancellor's action, whatever we think about it, bound to make matters worse in terms of employment in the Midlands? As it points to a very dangerous employment, short time and even redundancy situation in the Midlands in the latter part of the year, would the right hon. Gentleman agree to calling an emergency conference with the motor car manufacturers so that a sudden new crisis does not hit the Midlands without warning later this year?

I agree that these are disappointing figures but there are special reasons for them, particularly in the United States. I have very close contact with both sides of industry through the National Advisory Council, which is carrying out a special study of the export problem. What the figures bring out clearly is that the employment and prosperity of the motor industry very much depends upon its export achievements.

Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the important factor is to get down the cost of cars and if we cannot get a maximum throughput into our highly mechanised factories we cannot do that? Is he aware that if the taxation of the motor industry goes up any further we shall not have the home demand to justify the heavy capital expenditure involved in plant?

That is a rather wide question, and although I do not entirely accept what my hon. Friend said, I recognise the strength of his argument.

In view of the disappointing figures, can the President of the Board of Trade say whether the proposed extensions of the industry are going ahead at the pace previously proposed?

I have no reason to suppose that they are not.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the decline in the sale of British motor cars in Nigeria compared with the increased sale of non-British cars and of complaints of delay and difficulties in servicing British cars; and what action he will take to assist the increase of exports to Nigeria by British motor manufacturers.

Sales of British motor cars in Nigeria have increased steadily in recent years, but the United Kingdom's share of the market has decreased. All aspects of this matter, including the problem of servicing, are being studied jointly with the industry.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that Answer is extremely ambiguous and conveys no concrete information? Can he say whether, according to the information which he has gathered, the statement implicit in my Question is true and that it is very difficult to find proper servicing for British cars? In that case, what is being done to see that they are serviced properly or that facilities are provided for that purpose?

No doubt better servicing could be provided. We are discussing with industry ways and means by which this can be done.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister of Northern Nigeria had an air-conditioned Rolls Royce, that when it went over a laterite road he was entirely covered in red dust which had come through the air conditioner, and that consequently he got rid of it and is buying an American car?

No, Sir. I am not aware of that

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent he expects the current Govern- ment factory building programme in Scotland, and that for 1962–63, to be affected by the recent decision of Her Majesty's Government regarding the economic situation.

I have not in mind any change in this programme.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him explicitly to give the House an assurance that, in view of the importance of maintaining the drive for new industry in Scotland, there will be no cuts in the factory building programme during this year or the next financial year?

I do not intend to make any cuts in the programme in Scotland or in any other part of the development districts. As my right hon. and learned Friend said in his speech on 26th July, we will continue to use our powers vigorously to deal with this situation.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on the measures taken to prevent the dumping of foreign barley, and so ensure a steady market for the home crop at a price level that does not require unduly heavy Exchequer subsidy.

Yes, Sir. As I told the hon. Member on 7th July, the French authorities have agreed to make no further sales beyond existing contracts and they informed me that the amount still to be sold under existing arrangements did not at that time exceed about 30,000 tons. Similarly the Australian authorities informed me that outstanding deliveries from the old crop did not exceed about 45,000 tons of which a proportion has been sold at above £20 a ton. As I also stated on 7th July, discussions are to be held with the French and Australians about the price at which new sales may be made. These discussions will be based on the need to establish a c.i.f. duty paid price of not less than £20 per ton. As regards Russian barley, agreement has been reached with the Soviet authorities that exports for delivery to the United Kingdom during the 12-month period 1st July, 1961, and 30th June, 1962, shall not exceed 150,000 tons; this compares with about 340,000 tons delivered in the previous twelve months.

This is better news. Has my right hon. Friend been able to get an assurance from the Russians that they will not unload barley here at less than £20 a ton, especially during the coming three months, when the weight of the the main harvest will be on the market?

They have agreed to limit their deliveries to 150,000 tons, and I am grateful for their help in this matter. I am certain that as the amount which they can send is limited they will arrange their time of delivery so as to get the maximum price for the product.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why three applications for anti-dumping duties have been under consideration by his Department since September, 1959, June, 1960, and December, 1960, respectively; and when he will come to a decision in these cases.

The Board of Trade announced the decision on corduroy from Spain, advertised in December, 1960, on 28th July. In the other cases mentioned by the hon. Member, the facts relating to dumping and material injury are hard to determine and I cannot say when it will be possible to take a decision.

I do not want to hustle the right hon. Gentleman in the other cases, but does it not appear to him that the anti-dumping machinery in his Department, about which there have been many complaints in recent months, is creaking a little?

I have myself heard no sounds of creaking.

asked the President of the Board of Trade since imports from Canada in the last three years were £308, £312, and £375 million, respectively, and exports were £188, £207, and £213 million, leaving an adverse balance of £387 million, what new steps he is taking to induce the Canadian Government to reduce tariffs and restrictions against British imports and to allow the United Kingdom to sell to Canada as much as it buys, since this could go a long way to solve the United Kingdom balance-of-payments problem; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, when recently in Canada, took the opportunity to stress the importance we attach to access to the Canadian market in view of the large market we provide for Canadian goods. We cannot, however, necessarily expect bilateral balance with a particular country, and Canada is a market in which our exports face no import restrictions, enjoy substantial preferences and have expanded by more than half over the last ten years.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Canadians are buying far more from the United States than they are selling and that they are paying for the excess imports from America by selling far more to us than they are buying from us? Is he aware that we are paying for that excess of imports of American goods into Canada and that in addition the Americans are selling to us £230 million more a year than they are buying from us? If only the North American trade were settled there would be no problem for this country. Have we not a right to press both Canada and the United States to encourage British exports into their markets?

This triangular pattern of trade is traditional. If we try to balance our trade bilaterally with every country the only result will be a reduction in the total volume of trade. I do not think that we are entitled to press these countries to encourage our exports, but we are entitled to press them not to put any barriers in the way so that we can earn as much as we can in their markets.

There are barriers both in the United States and in Canada. If my right hon. Friend does not know about them let him ask any textile manufacturer. Surely he knows this. Are we not entitled to press them to help us or to stop their goods coming here?

If my hon. Friend looks at the comparative barriers to trade in this country and in the case of most American goods, I think he will revise his views.

Have the Government recently approached the Canadian Government and suggested that they should be willing to reduce their tariffs on the import of manufactured goods from this country, provided that we continue our present tariff-free entry to Canadian goods here? Would not that meet the point?

If that involved creating a wider margin of preference it would be ruled out by G.A.T.T. We have approached the Canadian Government recently on a number of individual points in which we think they ought to be able to help.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make available in the Library copies of the agreement reached at Geneva recently between the major cotton textile and importing countries; and if he will make a statement on the agreement.

Yes, Sir. These arrangements, which were agreed ad referendum, include a short-term arrangement for the year beginning 1st October, 1961, providing for increased access to certain markets at present restricted and for bilateral negotiations for avoidance of disruption in markets which are not restricted. A G.A.T.T. Cotton Textiles Committee will be established and will meet in the autumn to consider a longer term solution to the problems of international trade in cotton textiles.

Although I have not seen the full text of the agreement, it appears to me that in the short term it will have the effect of freezing American imports at about one-twentieth of the level of domestic production and freezing imports into this country at approximately half of our level of domestic production.

The detailed effects need a considerable amount of working out, but on balance it will help to produce a certain increased stability in the international trade in these commodities.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that while the details are being worked out a good deal of alarm and despondency is being spread throughout the textile industry in this country? Has he considered what would be the effects of the agreement now made if this country persisted in its attempts to become part of the Common Market? Would that mean that there would be a Completely free flow of European textiles into Britain?

On the whole, the effect of our relations with the Common Market, which are industrialised countries, is rather different from the question of the imports of textiles from low-cost producers, which is that mainly in the mind of the G.A.T.T. discussions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements his Department makes fur dealing with individual industries; and what kind of information his Department calls for from each of the industries in his care.

My Department keeps in touch with individual industries mainly through trade associations but also in direct discussions with firms. There are some consultative committees relating to particular industries. In addition to statistical information, the views of industries are sought on many aspects of Government policy which affect their trading interests.

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that he is getting enough information on such items as orders arid stocks to be able to give him an up-to-date picture of the State of an industry at any time?

Although we are all the time improving our statistical services, particularly on orders and stocks, I am certain that a good deal more can be done. But we must also always counter-balance the desirability of additional information against the considerable inconvenience created to business if one asks too many questions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now begin, as an experiment with one industry, the practice of calling for an assessment of productivity in the current year and a forecast of productivity for 1962.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking carefully at this suggestion in the review of the processes of consultation and forecasting which is being carried out in acordance with the statement which he made last week.

May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman selects an industry with a very good record for work study and inter-firm comparison.

I am grateful for that suggestion.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in the light of discussions between the Hong Kong Government and industry, he will now state whether exports of duty-free cotton textiles from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom will continue to be limited after 31st January, 1962, on the lines of proposals made by the Government on 30th June.

The Advisory Board which is representative of the Hong Kong industry has advised that, subject to some reservations which are being further considered, the proposals should be accepted.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the relief that may be felt in Lancashire that the uncertainties as to what might happen after 31st Janaury have been resolved? Can he say whether the agreements with India and Pakistan will automatically be extended? Can he assure me that he will work to ensure that this short-term solution might be translated into some longer-term agreement?

I shall be very glad indeed when this problem is resolved. There are still some reservations which we have to sort out. We cannot be absolutely clear what the answer will be. The purpose is to bring the Hong Kong agreement in line, in point of time, with the Indian and Pakistan agreements. It is due to expire a year before they do. That will give all of us another year in which to look at the problem again. We have to recognise that India, Pakistan and Hong Kong all have an interest in our market.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has taken a decision on the application by the Steel Company of Wales for a licence to import coal from the United States of America.

In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, I have decided to refuse this application.

In view of that reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend to use his best endeavours and all his influence to ensure that the National Coal Board and the British Transport Commission get the right coal to the works of this company, which are so valuable to us, at the right time and at the right price? If they do not, will he review the situation?

This is a difficult question. In deciding to refuse this application I did not pre-judge the future. To allow the private import of coal would be a major departure in policy, and I took the view that, when the new Chairman of the National Coal Board is looking at the progress of the Board's modernisation plans, it is too early to make a departure from the present arrangements. But I emphasise that I was dealing with a particular application.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the delay in reaching this decision? Will there be an equal amount of stalling in future? Will he attempt to evaluate the loss of confidence suffered by the mining industry on each of these occasions?

I do not see why the mining industry should suffer loss of confidence. There is tremendous demand for its product if it is produced at the right price.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some inconsistency in this between the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues to increase production by encouraging exports, and this effort to protect a particular industry, first by penal taxation of an alternative form of fuel, and secondly by total prohibition of imports?

I do not think "penal taxation" is a fair description. Most of our industries have some form of tariff protection. My decision in this case was based not upon principle for the future but upon the fact that, while Lord Roberts, is looking at the position of the National Coal Board's development, it would be unwise to make what would be a major departure in policy.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received any application from this company for the import of cheap Russian oil?

Not so far as I am aware, but I would like notice of that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the second secretaries, third secretaries, under-secretaries and assistant secretaries in Her Majesty's Treasury hold degrees or qualification in physics, mathematics or engineering; and what percentage this is of the total numbers in the above grades.

Seven, or about 9 per cent., of the members of these grades on the Treasury strength hold degrees in mathematics or physics. None is a qualified engineer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, so far as one can see, about 20 per cent. of these gentlemen were educated at Balliol College, Oxford? Does not he feel that, particularly in view of the Reports of the Plowden Committee and of the "Three Wise Men", it might be a good thing to increase the percentage of those with experience of quantitative science? If he does think so, is he prepared to do anything about it?

This is a big question which we might profitably debate another time. A great deal of thinking is being done about the importance of skilled and qualified advice to Ministers. In the Treasury we receive today far more rigorous advice on economic ques- tions than might have been the case 20 or 30 years ago.

Had the Chancellor received any advice from his scientific advisers when he decided to revise the Burnham award to science teachers?

I think that is another question.

So do I.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the price of 31 per cent. War Loan on 1st October, 1951; and what was the price on 1st August, 1961.

8613/16 and 529/16 respectively.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the tape today, the price has gone down further to £51 5s.? I have no personal interest to declare in this matter, but is he aware that the people who patriotically lent their money at a time of national emergency are suffering as a result of Government mismanagement? What is he going to do about it?

I have on a number of occasions dealt with this matter, and I repeat that I am well aware, as is my right hon. and learned Friend, of the difficulties facing people who hold this stock. For the reasons I have explained at length before, particularly on 7th December last, there is no way in which we can take special action to help.

Most unsatisfactory.

is the hon. Gentleman entirely happy and content with a situation in which Government credit stands at the lowest levels ever recorded in the history of this country?

No, Sir. It is clear from my answers, now and previously, that we are not content with the hardship which is being suffered by individuals as a result of what has happened. But, for the reasons I have explained frankly to the House, I do not see how we can help.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated cost to the Revenue of extending to holders of 3½ per cent. War Loan a similar concession to that whereby the first £15 of Post Office Savings Bank interest is exempted from Income Tax.

I am afraid that it would not be possible to answer this Question without information that is not readily available about the sizes of holdings by individuals and the tax liabilities of present holders.

Is it not a fact that the figure must be quite a small one? In view of the supplementary questions which have been asked earlier this afternoon on this subject, will not the hon. Member now recommend to his right hon. and learned Friend that these patriotic investors should be given some relief in the somewhat difficult situation in which they find themselves because of the low standing of this stock?

For the reasons that I have given the House I think that the hon. Member will agree, on reflection, that it is not possible to give even a rough estimate. But in any event I do not think that it would be right to depart from the general rule that tax reliefs should be related to the amount of the taxpayer's income and his personal circumstances, and should apply generally to all taxpayers whose incomes and circumstances qualify them, and not depend upon the possession of a certain stock.

Is there not some parallel here between Post Office savings and War Bonds? Cannot the Minister do something to bring them into line?

No, because the reason for the relief given in respect of Post Office savings is as an incentive to savings, whereas what the hon. Member is asking for is on grounds of relieving hardship resulting from holdings of a certain stock.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the difference in the number of hours worked by a full-time, and those worked by a part-time, chairman of a public board.

The amount of time worked by a part-time chairman varies with the appointment.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I asked this question in view of the rather curious Answer given recently by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power who, in defending the payment of a salary of £6,000 a year—which I understand is £250 a year more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer's—to this gentleman working part-time, said that the office of chairman is not part-time in the ordinary sense of the word? May we know what the ordinary sense of the word is and how this is extraordinary?

I anticipated the first part of that question. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power gave a satisfactory answer. Full-time and part-time chairmen are both entirely responsible for the whole business of their boards, but in some posts it is realised that this responsibility can be properly discharged in less than a full working week. Salaries are calculated pro rata on the amount of time an individual is expected to have to devote to the business.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the percentage increase in salaries, dividends and wages which the country can afford this year.

As my right hon. Friend said in his statement on 25th July, his view as regards increases in wages and salaries is that there must be a pause until productivity has caught up and as regards dividends that a further general increase this year would not be justified.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that this goes to the very crux of our economic problems? Will he give the maximum publicity to this statement at this time? Does he agree that this is the best way in which he can help the holders of War Loan in future?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend in saying that this goes to the crux of the problem. I think that hon. Members on both sides will agree that what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about this matter has already received considerable publicity, but I know that he would be grateful not only if it could be made more widely known but also if it could be explained in more detail.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that these exhortations have been made in the past but have quickly worn off and had no effect? Will he consider suggesting to his right hon. and learned Friend that he writes to the chairmen of boards of public companies stressing and underlining the need, both economically and psychologically, for restricting increases in dividends?

I will certainly draw that suggestion to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Has the Economic Secretary any idea how long the pause will last, because the Government's economic policies look like making it a permanency before production rises?

No. The length of the pause will obviously depend on how we get on. I am bound to say that I am surprised that what my right hon. and learned Friend has said does not have the support of the hon. Gentleman. After all, to consider last year alone—between the first quarter of 1960 and the first quarter of 1961—wages and salaries per head rose by 7 per cent. In the same period productivity rose by less than 1 per cent. What my right hon. and learned Friend has said, as regards both wages and salaries, and dividends, is reasonable and I believe that it will have the support of the majority of people in this country.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that no announcement regarding the sale of Richard Thomas and Baldwins will be made during the Summer Recess.

It would not at any time be appropriate for me to give such an assurance.

Will the Economic Secretary tell the House during which Recess it is intended to sell Richard Thomas and Baldwins? Is it intended to sell it and follow the pattern of last year, when Llanelly Steel was sold three days after the House had gone down for the Recess, Staveley Iron in September, and S. G. Brown during the Whitsun Recess?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows—at least, if he has read the explanations which were given he should know—that his implications as to what happened in connection with those other companies are quite unfounded. The Government have stated their general policy on this matter. I cannot accept, neither can my right hon. and learned Friend, extra-statutory restrictions on carrying out a policy which has been approved by Parliament and embodied in legislation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what right of appeal there is under his regulations against assessments of property made by the Treasury assessor.

Properties in the occupation of the Crown are not rateable but ex gratia contributions in lieu of rates are granted to the appropriate local authority. The basis on which such contribution is made is determined by the Treasury Valuer after discussion with the representative of the Rating Authority. There is no statutory right of appeal.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that tenants of houses which belong, for instance, to the National Health Service have been very seriously perturbed by the increase in the assessment of those houses? They are very annoyed indeed that neither the individuals, nor the boards of management, nor the regional hospital boards have any right of appeal whatever, whereas anyone else in any other property which is assessed by a county or city assessor has the right of appeal. What do the Government intend to do to give these people the democratic rights which are enjoyed by the vast majority of people?

If there is a special case which the hon. Lady would like to take up with me, I shall be very glad to have it considered. I assure the hon. Lady that the Treasury Valuer is always prepared to re-open cases where his valuation is objected to, whether on the ground that it is too high or too low, and to take account of any adjustments which have been made to comparable property as a result of statutory appeals. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to get in touch with me about it.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I get in touch with him. I have already been in touch with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am glad to hear that the Treasury Valuer is willing to reconsider his decisions, but the important point is that people should have the right of appeal, which they have not got.

We cannot debate this subject now. The only concern of the Treasury Valuer and his department is to arrive at a fair valuation of the property concerned, having regard to other comparable property and to valuation law.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has now received the advice of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art with reference to the export of Goya's portrait of the Duke of Wellington; and whether he has received a request from the trustees of the National Gallery for a special grant towards the purchase of this picture.

I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on this subject made in reply to the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) yesterday.

I am sure that the whole House will want to join in the expression of gratitude to the Wolfson Foundation for its act of great generosity towards the nation and also to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his part in ensuring that this great masterpiece is in its proper home on the walls of the National Gallery. Will the Financial Secretary explain the Chancellor of the Exchequer's curious conduct with regard to my Question? It has been on the Order Paper for ten days. Why did he find it necessary to get one of his hon. Friends to table a Question for Written Answer yesterday, for which only a few hours' notice was given? If there was such a tearing hurry to make the announcement, why did he not get in touch with the hon. Member who already had a Question on the Order Paper?

I wish to say two things in reply to that. First, the hon. Gentleman is literally the last hon. Member in the House to whom anyone could wish to be discourteous. Secondly, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has written to him today. The point is simply this. One can be fuller and more explicit and put greater detail in a Written Answer than is possible in an Oral Answer. That is the sole reason. My right hon. and learned Friend has written to the hon. Gentleman and would like to express his full apologies for any unintended discourtesy to the hon. Member.

Will the Financial Secretary tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I find his explanation totally unconvincing but I naturally accept his apology? Is he aware that I raised this point only because Ministers are making a habit of this? It is a very bad habit, and I hope that Ministers will desist in future.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken since 25th July to formulate a national plan to raise production, promote exports, and achieve a better distribution of wealth; and what steps he is now contemplating to secure the elimination of waste and the fulfilment of essential needs.

I have nothing to add as yet to my right hon. and learned Friend's statements about the co-ordination of our economic development in the House on 25th and 26th July.

Does that mean that no steps at all have been taken? We have heard all about cuts, wage restraint, and rising interest charges. When will some positive policies be produced to raise production, increase exports, and stop speculative waste? Has the Treasury no such proposals?

My right hon. and learned Friend explained when he made his statement that he deliberately did not want to be specific about the machinery involved, because he wanted to formulate it in consultation with those concerned. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend has not been inactive on this matter since 25th July. In regard to the hon. Gentleman's reference to waste, the new plans for public expenditure will reinforce the drive against wasteful expenditure and will make the economy better able to meet the essential needs to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Since the exercise of sensible restraint in the payment of increased wages, salaries and dividends and the bringing to an end of outmoded restrictive practices are undoubtedly two essential prerequisites to the raising of productivity, is my hon. Friend comforted by the knowledge that he has the loyal support of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) in both those matters?

I am grateful for that.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that what we have heard so far about the results of his measures has been cuts in the provision of some essential needs, as, for example, a slow down in municipal housing, and the creation of a great deal of disruption in the education service? If this is all the contribution the Government have to make, it will not do much to raise production.

I can only suggest, with no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman, that he reads once again my right hon. and learned Friend's statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual cost of collecting Schedule A tax in terms of salaries, superannuation, office accommodation and all other expenses and overheads attributable to the processes of assessment collection and repayment of this tax.

Approximately £4·4 million.

As only £45 million is yielded by way of Schedule A tax from owner-occupiers, does not my hon. Friend agree that the cost of collecting it is quite disproportionate, and that when one also takes into account the time spent by accountants and bankers in making claims on behalf of their clients the amount of national resources applied in the collection and settling of this tax is really disproportionate?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that it would be false to make too much of this. Although these percentages are higher than the average of Inland Revenue taxes, which is only 1·48 per cent., it would be ridiculous to suggest that a tax which costs 3 or 4 per cent. of its total yield to collect is automatically not worth collecting.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will disallow the charging against company taxation of expenses on country houses, sporting properties and leases, boxes at racecourses, and similar items.

My right hon. and learned Friend will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind when he comes to review the whole question of expenditure on business entertaining before the next Budget.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is absolutely no justification for this sort of thing? There is no need, surely, for my right hon. and learned Friend to wait. Could not he simply make a statement to this effect immediately and satisfy many people who are disturbed about this?

I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend on this. Let me make a brief statement now. To the extent that directors and senior employees derive personal benefit from facilities of this sort provided by their companies, they are liable to tax on the costs to the company of providing them with the benefit. So far as they enjoy such facilities in the process of business entertaining, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend indicated sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view in his Budget speech when he referred to the unhealthy excess in some business entertaining, and, as I have replied this afternoon, he is engaged at this moment in a review of this whole question.

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not have to wait until next year to raise taxes by £200 million, why does he have to wait until next year to do something about this?

This is exactly the kind of subject where it is very undesirable to bring in precise fresh detailed legislation before one has examined all the aspects pretty thoroughly.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this matter is undoubtedly a scandal and ought to be stopped?

I have already referred to my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget speech. I suggest that perhaps my hon. Friend also recalls what I said to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) on an Amendment to the Finance Bill, that my right hon. and learned Friend has no sympathy with those who regard this subject as something beyond the competence of this House. This is certainly a subject which my right hon. and learned Friend takes most seriously.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Chancellor needs time to study this difficult problem. As we gave him all the evidence he needed on this on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on 9th May, 1956, together with detailed proposals of how to deal with it—I will give the hon. Gentleman the column reference if he wishes—why is it that after five years we are getting only statements that the Chancellor does not feel any sympathy for this racket?

It is not a matter only of the need for time to consider the problem, but time to consider the precise terms of any legislation which may be necessary.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total of Government and local authority borrowing which will be, or will become, repayable on or before 30th June, 1962; what is the total of the corresponding net liquidity from which such sums would need to be repaid; and what amount has been borrowed from overseas lenders which will be, or will become, repayable on or before that date by all borrowers in the United Kingdom.

Apart from floating debt and debt repayable on demand the amount of Government borrowing repayable in the year ending 30th June, 1962, is about £930 million. On the basis of the position in March, 1960, about £1,080 million of local authority loan debt is likely to fall due for repayment in the same period.

I regret that the answer to the second and third parts of the Question is not available.

Can the Minister give the House an assurance that, in respect of this £2,000 million of short-term debt, he will ascertain as soon as he possibly can the other two vital factors in the assessment of the situation as regards the national liquidity?

I was in the difficulty that I did not fully understand what my hon. Friend meant by the reference in his Question to "corresponding net liquidity". If he gives me further information, I will do my best to answer it, but it is difficult in any event, assuming that he is referring to the general credit base, to give an answer with regard to a future date. As regards borrowing from and repayments to overseas lenders, which is the second point in his Question which I am able to answer, I am afraid that figures are not available in the form in which my hon. Friend seeks them, because he referred to all borrowers in the United Kingdom.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total proportionate amount by which Government and local authority borrowings which will become repayable after 30th June, 1962, will be advancing in a year towards maturity, on the assumption that all such debts which have a compulsive date will be so repaid on the last date and those with a permissive date will be repaid only if the rate of interest is 6 per cent. or more.

On the assumption given in the Question, the proportion of Government debt, other than floating debt and debt repayable on demand, which will fall due for repayment in the year following 30th June, 1962, is approximately 8 per cent. It is not possible, at this stage, to calculate with any certainty what proportion of local authority borrowing will fall due for repayment in the period in question. But on the basis of figures relating to the position in 1960 about 17 per cent. of local authority outstanding loan debt is likely to fall due for repayment in the twelve months beginning 30th June, 1962.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now state the location of the fourth new university.

I have nothing to add to my right hon. and learned Friend's Answer of 18th May.

Is the hon. Member aware that his right hon. Friend said that we could expect this announcement within two or three months, and that it therefore should be possible for the Government to make it very quickly? Further, can he assure the House that there will be no pause in the establishment of further university places in this country? We are going to be seriously short of them within the next decade.

I regret that it has not been possible to make the announcement before the Recess. I can only say that an announcement will be made as soon as possible. In answer to the second half of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, it is not strictly on the Order Paper, but I can say here and now that my right hon. and learned Friend's measures of 25th July do not include any changes in university building programmes already announced.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what application he has received from the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for additional funds to enable them to provide facilities for hon. Members to make periodic visits overseas.

My right hon. and learned Friend has received no specific proposals on these lines.

Are we to understand that no request has come from the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for additional funds? Is he aware that I was informed by the secretaries of both organisations that they were making application?

No formal approach has been made for a review of the grant. Lord Munster, as Honorary Treasurer of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, has written to my right hon. and learned Friend informally, and to other officers of the Association, seeking their views on an expansion of the Association's activities. I am not prepared to say what advice he has received. [Interruption.] If we are not going to make a distinction between a formal request and an informal inquiry a good deal of our business will be very difficult.

I do not say that the hon. Member did so deliberately, but he actually misled us. Can he say what his right hon. and learned Friend proposes to do, now that this informal application has been received? Is he aware that this would mean only a few thousand pounds at the most? Surely we are net so hard up that we cannot afford that?

I cannot add to what I have said. The House has been made aware of the great need to conserve our foreign exchange at the present time, and the importance of this House setting an example in these matters. Beyond that I cannot go.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the revised interest rates on loans to local authorities from the Public Works Loan Board.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes in interest rates on Public Works Loan Board housing loans are proposed following the latest raising of the Bank Rate; and if he will remove restrictions on the quantity of such loans.

Government policy is that the rates of interest charged by the Public Works Loan Board should be kept in line with those ruling on the market. Market rates have been rising in recent weeks, and Public Works Loan Board rates will accordingly be raised. From Saturday, 5th August, the rates of interest charged by the Board will be:

		Per cent.
Up to 5 years	…	7½
Over 5 but not over 15 years	…	7½
Over 15 but not over 30 years	…	7
Over 30 years	…	7

It is not proposed to alter the conditions on which Public Works Loan Board loans will be made available. In other words, the Board will continue to act as lender of last resort to local authorities who cannot borrow on reasonable terms on the market.

In view of the heavy burdens which will be placed upon local authorities as a result of these changes, where local authorities have received loan sanction prior to the announced increase in the Bank Rate should not the Government provide the necessary funds, through the Public Works Loan Board, at a fixed, reasonable interest, so as to permit local authorities to avoid some of the burden that is being placed upon them?

I can best answer the right hon. and learned Member's question by saying that the normal rules which have hitherto applied when there has been a change in the rates of interest will apply on this occasion.

Is not that a monstrous reply? Is it not going to add 10s. or 15s. a week to the rent of the average council flat? Will it not drive rents so high that many families who desperately need council flats will be unable to go into them?

Unless the rates charged by the Public Works Loan Board are kept in line with those ruling in the market, local authorities borrowing from the Board would be at an advantage or a disadvantage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—as compared with those borrowing on the market. I will explain if hon. Members will listen. Surely it would be unfair as between one local authority and another if those authorities borrowing from the Board could borrow more cheaply than those borrowing from the market.

Who, in heaven's name, does the hon. Gentleman think is responsible for the rates ruling in the market? It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who increased the Bank Rate last week. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he thinks it is possible for local authorities to meet the enormous problems of overcrowding and slum clearance with Public Works Loan Board borrowing rates of 7 per cent. and 7½ per cent.? Since the purpose of the high Bank Rate is simply to bring into this country "hot" money which we do not need and cannot use, and which causes fresh problems when it goes out again, will the hon. Gentleman tell his right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider the whole policy?

No, Mr. Speaker. The reasons for the increase in the Bank Rate were explained at length by my right hon. and learned Friend in the debate the other day, and there would be no point in my going over all that ground again this afternoon. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands the reasons perfectly well, but it must follow from the policy which has been pursued by the Government since October, 1955, with regard to local authority borrowing, that the rates of interest on loans made by the Public Works Loan Board must be kept in line with the rates ruling in the market. Otherwise, the whole system becomes completely unfair.

Is not it equally true that while rents may be increased savings are increased, as the saver gets a higher rate of interest? Is it not true that high rates of interest are beneficial to savers and that it is the saver we wish to help at the moment?

I think it is recognised by most people who have studied this matter that the general effect of the action taken by my right hon. and learned Friend will be of benefit to the economy. But I should like to make plain that the raising of these rates is not a deliberate measure to restrict local authority capital expenditure. It is simply an action taken in line with the policy pursued since 1955 in dealing with interest rates on loans made by the Public Works Loan Board.