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.