asked the Chancellor the Exchequer the approximate amount received weekly by the 23,436,000 total working population if the total amount of wages, salaries, pensions, interest and dividends, after payment of Income and Surtax were equally divided.

The total amount of wages, salaries, pensions, interest and dividends in the year 1951, after Income Tax and Surtax, is estimated at £9,741 million. This total includes professional earnings, farming income, profits of sole traders and partnerships, and other forms of property income in respect of which separate figures of income after tax are not available. The total working population in mid-1951 was 23,323,000; £9,741 million, divided by 23,323,000, yields £8 0s. 8d. weekly per head.

Do I understand, therefore, that if there were no rationing by the purse the Socialist Members of the House would have to accept less than half the salary they are now getting despite the fact that most of them—many of them—say they cannot live on the income they already have?

That does not arise out of this Question.

Is there any reason to believe that workers receiving £6 a week or less would object to having a rise to £8 a week?

It seems to me that that also does not arise out of this Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the latest United Nations estimates show a fall in the income per capita in Britain from $773 to $639 between 1949 and 1951, whereas Canada shows an increase from $870 to $1,162 while the United States increase is from $1,453 to $1,787 for the same years; what steps he proposes to take to make the nation realise the gravity of its economic position; and what fresh action he proposes to take to save us from economic disaster.

The apparent fall between 1949 and 1951 in the national income per caput of the U.K. quoted by my hon. Friend is due to a change in the method used by the United Nations Secretariat for converting national incomes from national currencies into dollars. The figures are, therefore, not comparable.

Could my hon. Friend give the comparable figures if the same calculations were used, because when I obtained these figures in New York, four months ago, I was not told there was any alteration in the basic calculation?

It would be difficult to do so. The figures in 1949 were based on converting pounds into dollars, on a rough estimate of the comparative cost of living in each country. In 1951 the basis was the official exchange rates. In fact, between 1949 and 1951, it is estimated, the real income per head in the United Kingdom rose by 3½ per cent.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the President of the National Union of Mineworkers has had to pay Customs Duty on two gold watches given to him as a gift by the American Mineworkers' Union, whereas other travellers last year were allowed to bring in gifts free of duty; and what is the reason for the difference of treatment on payment of Customs Duty.

The gold watch presented to Sir Will Lawther by the American Mineworkers' Union has been admitted free of Customs charges under Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1933. The gold watch presented to Lady Lawther on the same occasion is not admissible under this provision, and Customs charges have been levied as in other similar cases.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since I put this Question down the Prime Minister kindly intervened, and that it was arising out of that kind intervention that Sir Will Lawther got his money back? Can the hon. Gentleman say why this charge was made in the first instance? Was there any neglect?

This is a somewhat infrequently used statutory provision, and I think the Customs officer concerned was perhaps imperfectly aware of it at the moment. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will seek an appropriate opportunity to express his appreciation to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase has taken place in the cost of the interest paid on the National Debt from 30th November, 1951, to 30th November, 1952.

The cost to the Budget of the National Debt charge in this period is estimated at about £95 million more than in the 12 months ended 30th November, 1951; £39 million of this increase was due to the payment in December, 1951, of interest on the U.S.A. and Canadian loans.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be considerable belief in the country, from the figures just given, that the benefits of many of the Government economies made in the last 12 months were really passed on to the moneylenders?

I hope that there will always be relief as a result of the answers given from this Bench. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is not a fair statement of the facts.

Are we, then, to understand from the reply that the increase in the cost to the Exchequer of the increase in the Bank rate was some £46 million in the last year?

The answer, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, relates to the total figure of the National Debt.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the National Debt is held by financial institutions, industrial companies, and individuals, respectively.

I regret that this information is not available.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it would be of great help to the House and to the country if these figures could be given, because we could then see whether these increased interest charges have been passed on to individuals or to moneylending institutions?

Whether or not it would be of help is, no doubt, a matter of opinion. But it remains an academic question because the information is not, in point of fact, available.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the increases which would be made in the gold and dollar balances of the sterling area if the dollar price of gold produced in the sterling area was related to world commodity prices.

Many estimates of this kind have been made, but the results vary very widely according to the base period adopted for the comparison, and to a lesser extent according to the commodity price index employed.

That is rather an ambiguous answer, if I may say so. Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, on a general observation of the position, if the discrimination shown by the American monetary authorities against a large sterling dollar product were eliminated it may be that the sterling dollar balances would be considerably increased?

It may be an ambiguous answer, but it was an ambiguous Question. Taking the 1938 relationship between gold and commodities, the value of the gold reserves would be increased. Taking the 1928 relationship, the value of the gold reserves would be decreased. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular years in mind for comparison, I shall be glad to give him the figures.

Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that what my hon. Friend is getting at is that the price of commodities has gone up enormously and gold has not? In fact, gold is now so expensive to produce that nobody can afford to produce it, which is a ridiculous position. What would be the effect if, for example, the dollar price of gold were doubled?

If the right hon. Gentleman would put a Question down I shall be glad to find the answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will insist on a revaluation of gold in terms of dollars to a figure in keeping with the rise in commodity prices since 1939 before agreeing to free convertibility of the £ sterling.

The right hon. Gentleman will not expect a reply to a hypothetical question.

On the contrary, I do. I am sure the Minister knows well enough that I put the Question down to get a reply. Is he aware that the price of gold is now at such a ridiculous level that it is almost uneconomical to produce it, yet it is so valuable that it forms the basis of all our currency arrangements? Surely he has a proper answer to give to my Question.

I think it would be not proper, but improper, if I were to answer the right hon. Gentleman's hypothetical question. I appreciate the importance of the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman's concern that it should be kept constantly before the House and the country, but I cannot make any further statement.

Can we take it that the Commonwealth conference will be discussing the whole question of the price of gold?

That is the sort of question which would probably be considered, but I cannot state exactly what is to be considered.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter is causing great dissatisfaction on both sides of the House, and will he make it clear to the Americans at every conceivable opportunity that it is time that this injustice to the sterling area was righted?

As I said, this is a very important question indeed, but it is also a very complicated question and I cannot make any further statement.

Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with the former Minister of State for Economic Affairs about this matter?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that only 68 gold mines are now in production in Canada, compared with 160 in 1942, owing to the fact that the cost of production is now higher than the artificially fixed price of gold; and what representations he proposes to make in collaboration with the Canadian Government to get an adjustment in price sufficient to enable the gold companies both in Canada and the Gold Coast to operate effectively.

I am not aware of all the reasons for the decrease in the number of gold mines in production in Canada since 1942. I regret that I have nothing further to say on behalf of Her Majesty's Government at present.

Has the Minister read the reports from Ottawa dated about the 12th of this month? Is it not rather extraordinary that this valuable metal, so valuable that it is the basis on which all our currencies are founded, is now so costly to produce in terms of its present valuation that nobody can afford to produce it? Are we not getting into an absurd muddle?

Her Majesty's Government are not getting into any muddle. I understand that the variation in gold production in Canada is not a matter for my right hon. Friend.

If the Minister will study the reports he will see that it is clear that those mines have closed because they cannot afford to produce, with gold at 35 dollars per fine ounce. What does the Minister propose to do about it to help the Canadian Government?

I do not think that my right hon. Friend is responsible to the House of Commons for that particular matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the great hardship inflicted on parents of apprentices by the meagre allowances recognised for Income Tax purposes; and if he will take steps to ensure that a junior going to work is treated not less favourably in this respect than a junior remaining at school.

This matter was discussed at length in this year's Finance Act debates, when the limit of earnings at which child allowance ceases to be due in these cases was raised from £13 to £26. I would remind the hon. Member that it is within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission.

Before the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend proceed to allocate any further bonuses to Surtax payers in the next Budget, will they get down to this question and recognise that there is a grave anomaly between the parents of apprentices and the parents of students who are continuing their education at very great cost to public funds, and that it is a question on which the Treasury should be more alive to the hardships inflicted on many constituents of hon. Members on these benches as well as on the benches opposite?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that in this year's Finance Act the limit of these allowances was doubled. He will also, no doubt, recall that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General made it clear that any question of a more radical review of this matter must await the views of the Royal Commission.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial assistance from public funds has been granted or promised for the current year to the Covent Garden Opera Company, the Sadlers Wells Opera Company and the Carl Rosa Opera Company, respectively.

£240,000, £60,000 and £3,000 respectively.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the present policy of the Arts Council in granting practically nothing to the Carl Rosa Company, because it has lavished all its available funds on the other great opera companies, is forcing the Carl Rosa Company to give up its well known tours, and that there will be a great deal of criticism if the Carl Rosa Company is thus forced out of existence?

As my hon. Friend may be aware, discussions between the Carl Rosa Opera Company and the Arts Council are taking place at the present time, and I do not think that it would be helpful if I were to comment.

Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that all these things should not necessarily be centred in London, and that there should be some contribution made to companies in the outlying areas?

There is a great deal of force in what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but he himself, I think, will recall that the allocations are, in general, made by the Arts Council and not direct by the Treasury.

Why do the Arts Council refuse to give any money to provincial repertory companies, which, in their own way, provide just as much cultural entertainment as that which is provided in London?

I should want notice of that question.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that year after year protests are made about the large sums spent on subsidising operas in London and about how little is done for the provinces, and will he see whether that state of affairs cannot be brought to an end this year?

I am sure that the Arts Council will pay attention to such views as may be expressed in this House.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government will include the need for reciprocal tax relief between India and the United Kingdom among the subjects for consideration at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference.

I fully understand the need for a double taxation agreement with India, but the negotiation of such an agreement involves highly technical matters affecting this country and India which could not conveniently be considered at the conference.

Is the Financial Secretary aware of the importance of this matter to sterling companies operating in India which, owing to the unusual rules as to domicile imposed by India, have to pay on interest from their gilt-edged investments, taxes amounting to 24s. in the £?

I am well aware of the importance of this matter both to the companies to which my hon. Friend refers and to the general national interest.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer so to modify the conditions of Purchase Tax that articles which are not normally subject to tax or are taxed at a lower rate do not become liable to tax or to tax at a higher rate merely because they are ornamented as Coronation souvenirs.

The general principle of the Purchase Tax law in question is, I think, sound. I am considering a particular case to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention and will write to him.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this a matter of some urgency, because businesses are already in the process of putting articles into manufacture? Will he also bear in mind that some concessions were made by the late Administration in respect of the Festival of Britain, and that a great many people hope that Her Majesty's present Government will be at least as generous in respect of the Coronation?

I am well aware of these considerations, and I think that my hon. Friend will be well aware that he raised this matter with me as recently as Monday of this week.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the ruling that these articles would carry a 100 per cent. Purchase Tax was only recently intimated to the manufacturers, and that if this 100 per cent. tax is continued, these articles will become too expensive for the home market, and manufacturers in the City of Birmingham will lose thousands of pounds which they have spent in tooling up? Articles which, as Festival of Britain emblems, bore 66⅔ per cent. Purchase Tax now have to bear 100 per cent. Purchase Tax because a Crown has been added to them. Pencils which had 33⅓ per cent. Purchase Tax on them have now 100 per cent. Purchase Tax because they have a Crown on the top. That is absolutely ridiculous.

I do not know when the manufacturers became aware of the legal position, but I must say that that has been the position for some considerable time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will exempt fluorescent hot cathode tubes from Purchase Tax.

This suggestion is being considered.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an estimate of the annual loss of revenue from entertainments tax which would result from the introduction of a 10 per cent. discriminatory tax relief in respect of the exhibition of British films.

The discriminatory use of the Entertainments Duty in this way would be contrary to our international obligations. The revenue aspect of the matter does not therefore arise.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that in spite of G.A.T.T. this kind of discriminatory relief is in operation in some European countries, notably Italy, with very great success, and will he therefore inquire into that aspect of the matter? If G.A.T.T. is not to operate in those countries, why should we not have relief here for British film production?

Any question of the carrying out of the obligations of other countries under G.A.T.T. is, in the first place, a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now fix a date under Section 85 (1) of the War Damage Act of 1943, dealing with general settlement of claims under the Business Scheme of Part II.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) on 25th November.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the dislocation at present being caused in the retail motor trade by uncertainty over the future incidence of Purchase Tax, he will make a statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the threat to trade and employment in the motor industry arising out of the present level of Purchase Tax; and what steps he will take in this respect to assist the motor industry in its difficulties.

My right hon. Friend has under consideration various representations which have been made to him on this subject, but I am not at the moment able to make any statement.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that this is now an urgent matter? This tax, imposed in inflationary circumstances, today puts a severe handicap on the motor industry in the present deflationary circumstances. Is he also aware that it is the forecast of a leading Midland manufacturer that unless this tax is reduced there will be severe unemployment in the motor industry before Christmas?

All relevant considerations will be very carefully considered by my right hon. Friend.

Does the Minister's reply mean that there is a possibility of some announcement being made on this matter during the next few weeks, or the next month or two, before the Budget?

The right hon. Gentleman ought not, I think, to read into the answer anything more than is actually in it.

Will my hon. Friend consider having the Purchase Tax on motor cars collected by the licensing authorities, and in that way obviate the necessity of the retailer carrying a large amount of Purchase Tax on his books and risking, if the tax were taken off, a considerable loss?

That does not arise on this Question.

In view of the importance of restoring the export trade in motor cars, will the hon. Gentleman see that this matter is raised in the Commonwealth Conference which is about to start?

I should want notice of that question.

To end uncertainty in this matter and to prevent what is becoming more and more like a buyers' strike, will the hon. Gentleman treat this as a matter of extreme urgency and make a statement about the position at the first possible opportunity?

This Government never indulge in unnecessary delay.

Today's funny story.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now introduce legislation to increase the salaries of Her Majesty's High Court judges since such increase is long overdue.

The Government have been giving thought to the financial position of Her Majesty's High Court judges. But I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Can my hon. Friend think of any other appointment which has not had a salary increase for 121 years? Is he aware that in this matter he is bound to have the support of Her Majesty's Opposition, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), when he was Financial Secretary, promised to introduce this legislation in 1949 and failed to do so? Is it not time that this Government kept pledges which the last Government failed to keep?

That would be a very full-time occupation.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a further hardship for Her Majesty's judges? If they do not get the increase, they will not be able to buy any morning eggs.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the non-recurrent grants to Scottish universities for the period 1947–51 were approximately only one-tenth of those to English universities.

The expansion of the universities in England and Wales has been proportionately greater than that of the Scottish universities, and plans for new building and re-equipment were put forward earlier by the former than by the latter.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is most unfair and that universities in the counties of Durham and Northumberland, a notorious haunt of Border brigands, got as much as all the Scottish universities put together in the last quinquennium?

All comparisons, and particular Border comparisons, are proverbially odious, but the hon. Gentleman will be consoled to know that there is still one full-time student for every 340 of the population in Scotland compared with one for every 639 in England and Wales.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the scarcity of graduates for posts suitable for them is extremely great and that the prosperity of the country depends on making the best use of the brains in the country? Will he see that no stinginess about grants to Scotland prevents boys who are capable of taking degrees from reaching the tops of the professions?

While no one can give the unqualified assurance for which the right hon. Gentleman asks, I can assure him that we are very well aware of the great importance of the matter.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the university situation in Scotland is not a simple and homogeneous one, and that the two smaller universities ought to be built up while the other two are far larger than any unitary university institutions in England and far beyond the optimum desired by those who are interested in this matter? Is he aware that there is a strong case for discrimination in the grants as between Aberdeen and St. Andrew on the one hand and Edinburgh and Glasgow on the other?

That is as may be, but the hon. Gentleman will not lure me into a Scottish inter-university controversy.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that statuettes of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh do not attract Purchase Tax; that ash trays are subject to 66 per cent. Purchase Tax; and why, therefore, the Purchase Tax is raised to 100 per cent. when statuette and ashtray are combined.

This matter is governed by the ordinary Purchase Tax law. The exemption in respect of statuettes of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness which I announced on 31st July for one year from 1st October, 1952, applies only to statuettes as such and not when statuettes of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness are used to decorate some other article. Ashtrays, to which such statuettes are attached, are taxable at the rate applicable to articles incorporating statuettes.

Is my hon. Friend aware, first, that, on the facts stated, this is an extremely illogical situation, and, secondly, that the result is that we shall lose a large number of overseas orders which we should otherwise have got because home sales, bearing 100 per cent. Purchase Tax, are likely to be negligible and manufacturers cannot afford to tool up on that basis? Will he look at this again?

If my hon. Friend has any case which he desires to draw to our attention, I shall be very glad to examine it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is but one of the illustrations of the many anomalies and follies of Purchase Tax and that a general review of the whole tax is long overdue?

While I do not necessarily go as far as my right hon. Friend does, I should be the last man in the House to dispute that the Purchase Tax law sometimes involves intricate and difficult problems.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will abolish the Purchase Tax on crash-helmets in order to encourage their use by motor-cyclists.

I am considering this matter though I fear there are great difficulties involved.

Instead of penalising the use of this essential life-saving precaution and, in effect, putting a tax on safety, will the hon. Gentleman consider the very sound advice on this subject which was given in a speech at the opening of the Motor Cycle Exhibition at Earls Court a few days ago?

I hope my answer indicated sympathy with this question, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman must recall that there are many other forms of protective clothing which are subject to tax and that consideration of a concession in one direction would inevitably give rise to consideration of the other cases as well.

When my hon. Friend considers this, will he bear in mind how strongly large numbers of doctors and surgeons feel about it, in view of the wastage of time, money and their services in dealing with the cracked heads of motor-cyclists? If he is prepared to remit the tax he will get it back by a saving on the National Health Service.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he undertakes his review of the national finances at the end of the year, if he will reduce the periods of covenants of legal charities from seven to five years; and what would be the loss of revenue if such a proposal were adopted.

The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement. It is not possible to estimate precisely what this proposal would cost the Revenue, but it might be a considerable amount.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many charitable organisations which have adopted this practice are finding their subscribers very reluctant to enter into contracts for as long a period as seven years in these very uncertain days, and that, if the period was reduced, subscribers would probably renew their contracts and there would be no loss in revenue? Will he put this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him to give it serious consideration at the proper time?

The hon. Gentleman may be reassured to know that under the present law the number of covenants of this sort is increasing.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department will, in future, keep separate returns of the Purchase Tax collected on the sale of wet and dry wireless batteries, respectively.

No, Sir. The collection of detailed information of this kind would impose on traders and officials alike a heavy administrative burden which I consider would not be justified.

Does my hon. Friend's reply suggest that among the thousands of civil servants that we have there are not a few who could be spared for this task? Is he also suggesting that he is unable to distinguish the wets from the dries?

The last part of that supplementary question seems to have a Transatlantic ring. My hon. Friend will appreciate that a good deal of the burden which he suggests should be imposed would fall not on the public service but on the traders concerned. It is our desire to effect every possible reduction in the size of the public services.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the Australian Government every possible facility for borrowing money in London, so as to assist the return to normal trade as soon as possible.

No such application has been made by the Commonwealth Government of Australia. While we always consider sympathetically any proposals or requests made to us by Commonwealth Governments, I regret that our economic situation severely limits the extent to which we can finance exports with loans from London.

While it may very well be that no official application has been made, is the hon. Gentleman aware that private applications have been made and have been refused, and does he not think it very important that loans should be available to enable Australia to buy the equipment necessary to improve and increase her primary production?

I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's desire to expand trade between the United Kingdom and Australia, but the ability of a country to lend money overseas is entirely conditioned by its ability to send exports abroad without immediate payment.

Is it not impossible for Australia to improve and increase her primary production unless, first of all, she is given the tools with which to do that? How can she achieve that except by borrowing money?

There are possibilities and impossibilities on both sides. We do all we can.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the total amounts of Ministerial salaries will be increased or reduced by the appointments taking effect on 15th December next.

The whole series of changes, when completed, will result in an increase by one in the number of Ministerial appointments, and an increase in salaries of £3,500 per annum before deduction of tax.

Is it not a fact that whatever else may be the result of this Ministerial campaign of musical chairs, any reduction in Government expenditure to relieve the overburdened taxpayer will not be part of it?

The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that the country will get very good value for its money.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that the new Minister of Materials will lose as a result of his promotion to his high post, owing to the fact that he no longer has the advantage of being able to draw £500 a year Parliamentary expenses? Would the Financial Secretary consider paying him some compensation for the loss that he has suffered?

That does not arise on this Question.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the hon. Member for Croydon, East, was required to pay entertainment tax for seeing "Ring out the Bells" at the Victoria Palace while being allowed to see "An Italian Straw Hat" at the Old Vic free of such tax.

Because while the latter production was provided by a society not conducted or established for profit which has partly educational aims objects and activities, and which was, therefore, eligible for exemption under Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1946, the former production was not so provided.

Why should the more vulgar performance pay less tax than the less vulgar? Why is it to the advantage of the Welfare State to subsidise an institution which provides no revenue in the form of Income Tax?

The test of exemption is not whether the particular performance was calculated to educate those attending it, but it is related to the nature of the society itself.

Can the Financial Secretary say whether any entertainment tax was paid by those who were fortunate enough to witness the publicity-seeking performance of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) at a recent function in Croydon?

No doubt if the hon. Gentleman thinks that is a serious question he will put it down.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how much money will have been spent by the Central Office of Information during the current financial year in telling taxpayers how their money is spent.

One poster on the national budget was produced at a cost of £200. Some other information on this subject may well also be conveyed in other items of publicity, but it will certainly not cost, in all, more than a few hundred pounds.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that the Central Office of Information is devoting quite a lot of its time and money to telling the taxpayers how their money is spent, and that most taxpayers would prefer to pay a little less tax and find the information for themselves rather than continue to pay the tax?

Any taxpayer who expects that his tax bill would be substantially reduced by the cutting out of £200 is living in a somewhat unrealistic atmosphere.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the following question: "Is there a place for a Liberal Party in Great Britain Today?" was contained in the January, 1952, Civil Service Commission Entrance Examination, General Paper 1; and if he will give instructions that this type of question should not be included in future papers.

The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is "Yes, Sir." The question referred to was one of 10, any three of which required to be answered at this examination for entry to the Administrative Class. Responsibility for choice of questions rests with the Civil Service Commissioners.

Would it not have been far better, more appropriate and certainly more up to date if the question had been: "In view of their continual broken pledges is there any need for the Tory Party today?

No, Sir.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman—very hopefully—whether, if this question were put to him, he would answer it enthusiastically in the affirmative?

That does not arise out of this question, which is addressed to candidates for the Civil Service.

Would the hon. Gentleman undertake to print a selection of the answers in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

No, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Her Majesty's Government continue to discharge civil servants on the grounds of redundancy while Civil Service staffs generally continue to work 7 hours longer per week in London and 1½ hours longer elsewhere than in 1939.

I cannot agree to any suggestion that individual working hours in the Service should be reduced in order to save redundant staff from discharge.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any other industry in Britain where the workers have accepted discharges on the grounds of redundancy when overtime is being worked as a regular practice, a great deal of it without any pay whatever?

Without seeking to indulge in comparisons which would probably be misleading, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it is the duty of the Government to keep the demands of the Civil Service on the nation's manpower down to the minimum consistent with efficiency.

Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform his hon. Friends who are in the "hatchet group" behind him of the information he has just given about the Civil Service?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many more civil servants would be needed if the general level of hours were restored to the prewar figure; and how many more staff would be required in the tax branch of the Inland Revenue Department if staffs ceased to take work home for performance by members of their families.

The answer to the first part of the Question is, very roughly, 28,000. The answer to the second part is, about 750 full-time clerks.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear these matters in mind when he receives representations from his hon. and right hon. Friends about cuts in the Civil Service?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards the implementation of his declared policy of the partial introduction of equal pay in the Civil Service; and whether he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) on 14th October, he had been asked by the T.U.C. and by the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council to authorise the Whitley Council to begin discussions on the various possible schemes for the gradual introduction of equal pay. My right hon. Friend made it clear to the Staff Side that, while he would consider this proposition, he would not wish to raise false hopes that it would be likely that a start could be made on equal pay in the near future. Any discussions would, therefore, have to be non-committal.

Surely the hon. Gentleman remembers that he himself said that the Government would implement equal pay on a partial basis. Are we now to take it that the Government are backing out from the statement that was made in debate?

The matter remains, as has been clearly stated from this Box on a number of occasions, that we hope to make progress with this matter just as soon as the national economic and financial position permits.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the dispute between the staff side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council and the Treasury on the application of the principle of equal pay is within the scope of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal.

I endorse the ruling of successive Governments that questions of major policy, including that of equal pay, should not be submitted to arbitration.

How can the hon. Gentleman defend excluding a matter of pay from the scope of an arbitration tribunal, even though it is a matter of pay affecting women only? Will he explain the circumstances in which the scope of this Tribunal excludes this important matter?

For the reasons which have been expressly stated by successive Governments since at least 1918; that is to say, that on matters of major policy the Government must retain its unfettered responsibility to Parliament.

If that argument is to prevail, does it not mean that we are tied by every stupid action that the last Socialist Government took; and is it right that, because successive Governments have adopted what appears to be a most unfair principle, this beneficent Government should go on carrying out that stupidity?

The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is, "No, Sir." The second part, therefore, does not arise.

Does the hon. Gentleman's first answer mean that if the staff side draft terms of reference to the Arbitration Tribunal and send them forward the Government will advise the Tribunal not to hear the case, or that the Government will not turn up when the case is heard?

It means that the practice preserved by a number of Governments since 1918 will continue.

Will the hon. Gentleman give me an answer to what is a perfectly proper question? Would the Government not put in an appearance at the Arbitration Tribunal if the staff side exercised their undoubted right to send terms of reference forward to it?

In the first place, that is a hypothetical question. In the second place, though no doubt important, it is not this Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider reducing the annual intake to the Civil Service for a period, in order to give greater opportunity for older civil servants to remain at work.

Permanent recruitment to the executive and clerical classes of the Civil Service has already been reduced below the level which is desirable in order to maintain a healthy permanent Service.

When my hon. Friend refers to a level which is desirable, is he aware that the Ministry of Labour have dropped their intake altogether? Is that not a practice which might be encouraged by other Departments?

The problems of the Ministry of Labour are not, of course, the same problems as that of the whole of the Service, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is essential to maintain the efficiency of the Service.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the substantial decline in the delivery of bacon pigs to the Ministry of Food since May, 1952, what action he is taking to rectify the situation; and what improvement can be expected in 1953.

The fall in the number of pigs sold to the Ministry of Food since May has been due to purely seasonal causes, although they have continued on the average to be nearly 50 per cent. above last year. Deliveries are now returning to a higher level. Some increase in the numbers of breeding herds in 1953 is expected, the rate of expansion of pig products depending largely on progress in expanding the production of home-grown feedingstuffs.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps, through the agricultural executive committees, to encourage taking down notices prohibiting the public from agricultural land owing to foot-and-mouth disease, as soon as the ban on the movement of cattle is lifted.

My veterinary staff are responsible for the removal of all notices put up by order of the Ministry. As regards notices put up by farmers, I am asking local authorities and my veterinary staff, who are responsible for operating the foot-and-mouth disease regulations, to do what they can to encourage the removal of these notices when the need for them has passed.

Thank you very much.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made by the White Fish Authority in its costing investigations into prices and profits in the industry.

The White Fish Authority have completed two costings inquiries into inshore fishing and one into coastal wholesaling. They are now conducting an investigation into inland wholesaling and making preparations for costing studies of retailing and fish frying.

In view of the widespread dissatisfaction at fish prices, will the Minister do all he can to expedite the report on these investigations? Can he say whether fish friers and fishmongers will be included in the costings survey.

The reply to the first part of the question is "Yes." The reply to the second part is "Fish friers, certainly"; but it is a matter for the Ministry of Food.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what action he proposes to take in respect of the scheme prepared by distant water trawler owners to restrict landings of white fish by the vessels of British owners who subscribe to the scheme, in view of that part of the first report of the White Fish Authority which stated that it was undesirable that the decision as to whether British catches should be restricted or not should rest with a small group of trawler owners whose interests might not always be identical with those of consumers generally.

I presume that the hon. Member has in mind the distant water owners' development scheme which was introduced in 1950 to avert the danger of a market collapse for distant water fish such as occurred in that year. The White Fish Authority are discussing with the trawler-owners a proposal to replace these arrangements by a statutory scheme under the provisions of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951.