asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the rise in the cost of living, due to reduction of food subsidies and price increases of other foods, together with the increased cost of coal, travel and various necessary items of everyday use, is far in excess of the 1s. 6d. for which he stated compensation had been made in his Budget; and if he will, therefore. consider restoring the food subsidies to the level obtaining when he took office

The increase in the cost of the subsidised foods has in the event proved equivalent to slightly less than the 1s. 6d. per person per week which I predicted. Apart from this increase, which represents about 4½ points in the Interim Index of Retail Prices, there has been a rise of only about half a point between Budget day—11th March—and 16th December. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir."

Is the Chancellor aware that the Secretary of the Old-age Pensioners' Association has stated that the old folk are many shillings short of their requirements every week? I have here the letter giving the details if the Chancellor should be interested. Is he aware that it is no use suggesting that the pensioners should go to the National Assistance Board, because supplementary pensions are not given for extra food? What would he suggest the old age pensioners should do?

I shall be glad to look at any communication which the hon. Lady may send me, but I would point out to her and to the House that the old age pensioners would have been much worse off if it had not been for the measures proposed by this Government for the improvement of their pensions.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the Minister of Food admitted in November that more than 2 million meat rations had not been taken up by the poorest in the country, and will he consider this when he is framing his policy about food subsidies?

It is by no means certain which section of the population is not taking up its meat ration.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how much the cost of living has risen owing to nationalisation and how much the old age pensioners have to pay in the way of increased prices for coal and fuel of all kinds? Will he convey to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) the suggestion that she might do something by dealing with that aspect of the situation?

Is the Chancellor aware that many old people are having to choose between food and coal in these winter months as they cannot afford both? What does he suggest they should do?

In the circumstances, I think I had better let the two hon. Ladies fight it out together.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the increase since 1st April, 1952, per person per week, in the cost of rationed foods to the latest convenient date.

For all rationed and subsidised foods, the latest estimate is slightly below the estimate of ls. 6d. which I gave in my Budget statement. This includes the increase in the prices of bread and flour made on 16th March, 1952.

Is the Chancellor aware that many of us are wondering if it is the intention of the Government to make these increases as high as possible so that people cannot take up their ration? [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] It 1S no use hon. Members opposite groaning. Does the Chancellor know that gammon bacon is being de-rationed because people cannot afford to buy their share? Is the Tory policy better bacon for the well-off and the poorer quality for the less well-off?

No, Sir. As the hon. Lady will see from an answer which is to be given later, there has been a much smaller gap between the types of food bought by different sections of the population, and I welcome that. With regard to detailed points about rations, I would refer the hon. Lady to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food.

In view of the series of price and wage increases since the Chancellor followed his policy and the injurious effects of that on production and exports, cannot the right hon. Gentleman at least give us an assurance that the Government will not repeat this disastrous experiment this year?

I would not accept that this experiment has been disastrous. I would accept that a great deal of public money has been saved and that, considering the sacrifice involved, the public have accepted this in a remarkably good spirit.

Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm the fact that the sharpest rise in the cost of living occurred immediately after the £ was devalued by Sir Stafford Cripps in 1949?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the 1950 Report of the National Food Survey Committee, recently published, states that the difference in the amount of money spent on food each week between the well-to-do and poorer families is only a quarter of what is was before the war; and if he will give an assurance that steps taken by him to achieve an export surplus, as decided by the conference of Commonwealth Ministers in London, will reduce rather than increase this difference.

I have seen the statement in question, and welcome the narrowing of the pre-war gap between the food expenditure of the upper and lower income groups. This is a process which was, of course, set in train by the food policy of the war-time Coalition. I see no reason why any decisions taken by the Conference of Commonwealth Ministers should particularly influence the distribution of expenditure on food as between the different groups.

Is the Chancellor aware that we on this side of the House are worried about the attitude of the Conservative Government and that this narrowing of the gap took place in 1950? Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that many people are unable to take up their butter, their meat, their bacon or their egg ration?

On a point of order. How many times can an hon. Member repeat the same question in the form of a supplementary?

It is not proper to repeat either speeches or questions unnecessarily, but it is difficult for the Chair to know what is going to be said until it has been said.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the narrowing of the gap between the amount of money spent by the well-to-do and by other people on food is due in the main to the policy of rationing, controlled prices and food subsidies, all of which the Government are undermining or withdrawing?

I would not accept such a sweeping generalisation as the hon. Member makes, and I would also draw attention to the fact that there is merit in this narrowing of the gap, as I stated in my answer to the Question. This narrowing arises from the realistic food policy adopted at the time by the wartime Coalition and carried on since. Turning to the observations of the hon. Lady, I would only say that we are far more worried about the attitude of the Socialist Opposition, and they are far more worried about divisions among themselves, than she is worried about the Conservative Government.

Mr. Simon.

On a point of order. I was in the middle of a question when my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) intervened with his question. Would you allow me to finish the question I was putting?

I thought I had heard the hon. Lady's question before. if she has something new to ask, she had better ask it.

I was interrupted in my introductory remarks. May I ask the Chancellor if he knows that we on this side of the House are quite united in our efforts to stop this constant bettering of the well-off sections of the community at the expense of the less well-off?

I can only say about that, without wishing to enter into any controversy with the hon. Lady, that the signs of the betterment of conditions generally are reflected in popular opinion and its support of the present Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the purchasing value of the £ sterling at the latest available date as compared with its purchasing power in October, 1951.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the purchasing power of the £ sterling has varied since October, 1951.

Taking the figure for October, 1951, as 20s., the corresponding figure for December, 1952, was 18s. 7d. This answer is based on the Interim Index of Retail Prices of the Ministry of Labour.

Is the Chancellor aware that his reply will give great dissatisfaction to the many unfortunate people who voted Conservative in the hope that the figure would go the other way?

If the hon. Gentleman will look a little backwards and take the previous year from October, 1950, to October, 1951, based on exactly the same basis and certainly on the same calculation, he will see that the figure was 17s. 10d. under his Government as compared with 18s. 7d. under the Conservative Government.

Is the Chancellor aware that this cut of more than 7 per cent. in the value of the £ which has taken place since the present Government took office represents a very real hardship, and puts the housewife in the position of finding that the domestic budget cannot be balanced?

Can the Chancellor explain why there should be this depreciation in the purchasing value of the £, particularly, as we all know, when world prices are falling and have been falling rapidly, as against the price increases when the Labour Government were in office? Will he do something to mend the hole in the pocket?

I have already indicated in an answer to an earlier Question, that the cost of living has risen by only half a point between the Budget and December of last year, which is a very great improvement on the record of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I can only say that we intended, and that we intend, to tackle the cost of living. We have had a certain degree of success and we intend to go forward.

The figure is 7 per cent. down.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the increased cost of living has been substantially met in increased wages to the working population; and what steps he has taken to examine the position of persons living on small fixed incomes with a view to the alleviation of their situation.

It is difficult to give protection to particular classes against an increase in the cost of living beyond the many cases enumerated in my Budget statement.

In view of the fact that the Treasury proved exceedingly obstinate in granting increased widows' pensions for the widows of ex-Service—Regular Service—people, and is still continuing obstinate in relation to increasing retired pay for Service officers and a whole variety of questions on which the Treasury have been approached, not to mention the one which is being put at this moment, will my right hon. Friend behave like a human being—[Interruption.]

Unfortunately the latter part of the supplementary question of the hon. Lady was drowned in the applause with which her remarks were greeted. I can only say that in the national circumstances and the condition of our economy the Treasury have been remarkably human. I accept full responsibility, as Chancellor, not only for the many human acts in which I have been able to indulge but for the fact that on occasion I have had to say "No," which I think is an important attribute of my office.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what would be the dollar cost at current prices of purchasing the 750,000 tons of sugar in the first year, and thereafter 500,000 tons of sugar per annum to remove sugar and sweets from rationing in the United Kingdom; by how much it would be necessary to decrease dollar tobacco purchases to pay for this extra sugar; and how many fewer cigarettes, per capita, per diem, such a switch of tobacco and sugar would entail;

(2) how much loss of revenue in respect of Duty, would be entailed in a full year by reducing purchases of tobacco from dollar sources, by an amount equal to the sum required to purchase the 750,000 tons of sugar in the first year, and thereafter 500,000 tons of sugar per annum, to remove all sugar and sugar products from rationing in the United Kingdom.

The cost of purchasing 750,000 tons of sugar at present prices would be 60 million dollars; this is the cost at present prices of about 84 million pounds of dollar tobacco.

It is not possible to predict the effect on cigarette consumption of a reduction of this order on purchases of dollar tobacco.

The loss of revenue is conjectural but would probably be at least £300 million

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, in spite of the complex issues involved here, the most virulent problem which the housewife has today is the shortage of sugar? As much fruit is being wasted every year, and as housewives cannot bake or make cakes or make jam, would it not be preferable to appeal for a small sacrifice from the smoking population in order to cut down dollar imports of tobacco and to use the money for a better purpose—buying more sugar?

I have naturally studied the Questions which the hon. Gentleman has put on the Paper, but I am satisfied that in the general interest it is better to leave the equation between the two more or less as it is at present.

Would it not be possible to save quite a lot of dollars on American films and to use that money for the purchase of sugar?

The whole film question is tied up with international agreements, but the whole question is also always under review.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how it came about that Arthur Leader, Bishopstone Road, Grove Hill, Middlesbrough, an undischarged bankrupt since 1932, was allowed to incur a liability of £250,000 to the Inland Revenue in respect of unpaid tax, dating back to 1942.

I have seen a report on this case but I am precluded from discussing the taxation affairs of individuals. The Revenue make every effort to assess and collect tax at the earliest possible date.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Question does not relate to the tax affairs of an individual but to the conduct of his officials in failing to recover a very large sum of taxation? Is he aware that the figure was given in the public examination of the debtor?

I am, of course, aware of the reports of this case. because I read them in the public Press, but I am equally assured that the amounts alleged to be due to the Inland Revenue have been very much exaggerated and that the liability is very much less than that stated.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has now studied a memorandum of six points sent to him in December by the Associated Chambers of Commerce; what action he proposes to take; and whether he will make a statement.

As I have already told the President of the Association, I shall consider its views in connection with my Budget policy.

Has my right hon. Friend further considered a report from the British Federation of Industries and the National Union of Manufacturers, reported in the "Financial Times" yesterday, to which I have called his attention? Would he take immediate and courageous steps to clean up the mess left by the Socialist Government before it is too late?

My answer to that is that I have cleaned up quite a lot already. I have read the extract to which my hon. Friend referred me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give further particulars about the finance corporation to be established as announced in the communiqué issued at the end of the Commonwealth Economic Conference, showing in particular how it is to be financed; how it is to be controlled; and what principles it will apply in deciding whether to make loans in respect of different projects.

I am informed that while progress is being made by the organising group in the establishment of the proposed company, they are not yet in a position to make a further announcement.

Despite that lack of precise information, could the Chancellor say whether it is wrong to assume that what is intended here is a privately-run corporation with very considerable powers of distributing capital resources in different parts of the Commonwealth and with no form of public control or Ministerial responsibility and with no power for Questions to be asked about that policy in the House?

I do not think the House has ever been able to ask Questions about private enterprise or how it operates, but there are, of course, contacts between this body and Government policy, and, in general, the hon. Gentleman may feel that they are not going to indulge in activities which are anti-social or undesirable.

But are these contacts between the Government and the policy of this private body simply means by which Government policy is executed without there being any power for this House to ask any Questions about what the Government policy is or what has happened and why?

No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman had studied the report of the Commonwealth Conference in its communiqué, he would have seen that this is only one of the methods of providing capital for overseas development, and he may be well satisfied that there are other methods which fall within the purview of the Government about which he can ask as many Questions as he likes?

As the establishment of this body was mentioned in the communiqué. and as it is evidently intended to be part of the general policy to be pursued by the Commonwealth Governments, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider giving us a little information about it and, in particular, would he tell us on what scale it is intended that this institution should operate?

The reference in the official communiqué of the Commonwealth Governments referred to a communiqué issued by this body itself, and as this is a private body, I can only refer the right hon. Gentleman to the communiqué issued by that body.

As the answer seems to be very unsatisfactory, I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his reasons for refusing to make use of International Bank facilities for development in the Highlands of Scotland, in view of the urgent social and economic needs in this area.

I do not consider it desirable to add to our external debt by Governmental borrowing for development in the United Kingdom.

In view of the fact that several European countries have received large loans from this source, and since loans have to be made through the Government, according to Bank rules, is not my right hon. Friend saying, by inference, that Scotland is penalised in this respect by not having a separate Government of her own?

No, I would not say that. Scotland is extremely well looked after by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I can assure my noble Friend that I will do my best to listen to the views of the Secretary of State in all matters in which Scottish development is concerned.

Is it not a fact that there is no need to go to the International Bank and that there are Scottish banks which made enormous profits last year as a result of the increase in the Bank rate? Is not one of the great difficulties of local authorities in the Highlands and the Lowlands the great increase in the rate of interest which the people of Scotland have had to pay as the result of this policy?

The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear that the policy has had some very beneficial results.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now detail his proposals for the financing of development projects in the Highlands of Scotland, in view of the undertaking which Her Majesty's Government have given to finance development projects in Commonwealth countries overseas.

The existing facilities for financing suitable development in the United Kingdom, including the Highlands of Scotland, are adequate to provide for such investment as we can afford.

Will the Chancellor bear in mind that the Highlands of Scotland contain at least 10 million acres of the most under-developed land in the Empire and that if it were developed by modern methods this land could very materially relieve the food situation in the United Kingdom?

I am fully aware of this, and that is why the Government have engaged in marginal land and other schemes, and have done their best with the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board and in scheduling a development area in the Highlands all for the purpose of helping this area.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, in spite of what has been done, one of the most serious handicaps on all forms of Highland development is still lack of capital? Can he give us some indication that further steps are being taken, and that the Government will consider the setting up of a development board to supply this capital?

I cannot go further today than to say that the needs of the Highlands are always in our minds.

My right hon. Friend referred to Highland development. Can he say why no single firm has been introduced into that area since the Government came into power and can he tell the House whether the Government have the will?

The reply to the latter part of my hon. Friend's vehemence is "Yes, Sir" and the answer to the former part is that no firm has yet applied.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the crofter counties are reaching a situation where they are unable to accept the 75 per cent. grant because they are unable to raise the extra 25 per cent. through the rates?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Purchase Tax received from the sale of braille playing cards for the half year to 30th September.

I regret that there is no official information on this.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been told by the national society that does such good work for the blind that they entirely control the distribution of these cards so that they cannot get into unauthorised hands, and that because of this Purchase Tax contributions on which the tax has been paid are being used to meet the Purchase Tax, as otherwise the blind people could not buy the cards? Does he not think that the tax should be removed immediately so as to help people who are already heavily handicapped in life?

I cannot make any further statement on the removal or non-removal of the tax, but I will examine all the evidence which my hon. Friend sends me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take an early opportunity of abolishing Purchase Tax on the sale of braille playing cards.

At the time when the tax becomes due, these are ordinary playing cards. The braille indices are added later, and I fear I could not give these cards special relief on that account.

Would the Chancellor, whose human qualities are well established, look sympathetically at the abolition of Purchase Tax not only on this item but on other similar items which bring comfort or help to the disabled?

Yes, I am in the habit of reviewing all these things at this time of the year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the representations which have been made to him by the Trades Union Congress on the refusal of the Staff Side to prepare schemes for the gradual introduction of equal pay; and what reply he has made.

The Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council have not refused to prepare schemes for the gradual introduction of equal pay. They have said that they do not wish to enter into joint discussions on such schemes, the outcome of which the Government might not be able to accept. The Trades Union Congress have made no representations to me about the National Staff Side's decision.

Does it not look as if the Chancellor were asking for the preparation of a scheme by the Staff Side without giving any support on his side? Will my right hon. Friend convey to the trade unions my regret that they have not made any representations, and tell them with my compliments that if they do not make representations they are not the chaps that I thought they were?

Might I suggest that my hon. Friend write to Transport House herself? The address is Smith Square.

Will not the Chancellor declare himself on this matter, in view of the fact that the House has accepted the principle of equal pay on many occasions? When does he propose to take the initiative?

My actions are still governed by the statements of the Government made before the Election and since that we would like to take an initiative when we think the economic situation warrants it. We are just as much in favour of the general principle as is the right hon. Lady herself.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a further statement on the subject of equal pay in the Civil Service.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 27th November, 1952.

If any decision in this matter depends upon an improvement in the economic situation and circumstances of the country, does not that answer mean that there is no likelihood whatever of equal pay being implemented in the lifetime of the present Government?

If we go along as we are going now—we have, at least, improved things from the angle of our balance of payments and we have made considerable improvements internally—the hon. Member will be surprised if he watches how we get on.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive a report from the Committee he appointed last July to consider rebates on unsold retail goods.

I take it my hon. Friend has in mind the Committee which is considering the question of stocks on an alteration of Purchase Tax or Customs and Excise Duty. I cannot say exactly when the Committee will report, but I expect that it will be in the near future.

In view of the fact that this is of considerable concern to a lot of small shopkeepers, will the Chancellor do all he can to hasten this report and see if something cannot be done, if possible before the next Budget?

Yes, I am keen to see as early a report as possible.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has agreed to lend another £20 million to the Argentine when that country is in default on its existing financial commitments: and if he will make a statement.

The renewal of the financial arrangements made in 1951, including the provision for credit facilities, if required by Argentina, up to £20 million, forms part of a general settlement for securing our supplies of meat and for establishing the basis of trade and payments between the U.K. and Argentina during 1953.

Does the answer mean that the Argentine made it a condition that we should lend her another £20 million if we were to get meat supplies at all?

I would not like to state it in that spirit. All I can say is that if we were to get a general agreement it was clear that credits—which is the word I prefer to use—available up to this amount were an ingredient of the discussions and formed part of the final agreement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this agreement has been almost universally condemned in the Press, that he appears to have received no substantial concessions from the Argentine in respect of either the remittance of dividends and interest owing or in respect of exports from this country to the Argentine? Will he please consider making further representations to the Argentine to stimulate exports?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in part of his Question, we should advance our exports to the Argentine. I would not accept that the situation is as bad as he makes out. In regard to the remittances, it is by no means to be taken that remittances may not be made but, owing to the continuing shortage of foreign currency in the Argentine, it may be difficult to say that they can be made immediately. The right hon. Gentleman would be wrong to imagine that there is a negative attitude on the matter. I believe that this is as good an agreement as the Government could have made in the circumstances, and in due course it will come before the House for its consideration.

Could my right hon. Friend confirm that as part of this agreement coal, machinery, steel, and £3 million of textiles, mostly cotton piece goods, are to be supplied from Britain as a direct further aid to the difficulties that have occurred in Lancashire in the last 12 months?

In general, the intervention of the hon. Gentleman is correct and I thank him for it.

Are we to understand that in addition to the £168 a ton for this butcher's meat, which compares with £128 which the Labour Government were attacked for giving, we have to butter and sweeten the Argentine with this further loan of £20 million, and is it not a disgraceful admission on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that he could not get a better agreement than that?

As I said previously—and I think it would be wise to accept what I have said—this will be put before the House under a Supplementary Estimate and will no doubt be discussed. I think it would be better to discuss these matters on that occasion, but I would not accept the interpretation of the hon. Lady. When credits were made available before, they were not drawn upon, and therefore it would be wrong for the House to assume that this is a loan which may be totally taken up.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what prices the United Kingdom has agreed to purchase meat from the Argentine under the agreement recently signed; what prices the Argentine Government have agreed to pay for coal, steel and petroleum; what are the freight charges each way; and how these compare with pre-war prices.

As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While waiting for those figures, may I ask the Chancellor if it is a fact that we have had to pay high prices for the Argentine meat merely because that country has paid still higher prices for the coal and steel and tinplate which we are sending to her? Is it not a fact also that the rise in the price we are paying for that meat is even smaller than the rise in price which the Argentine is having to pay for our goods?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study the detailed figures in the somewhat lengthy report which I will circulate?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in framing his Budget, he will take steps by way of financial inducements to make the accumulation of small savings more attractive to people who, on retirement. will live on small fixed incomes.

I regret that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

In view of the fact that the Treasury collect £27 million per annum from incomes of under £250, if my right hon. Friend really wants to do something for people living on small fixed incomes will he kindly consider whether he could not remove altogether their liability to tax, and thus give some needed comfort to those who are suffering from Socialism in our time?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the concern caused by the reduction of national savings during the past year; and what steps he proposes to take to reduce the cost of living and so permit individuals to resume saving.

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. I appeal to the public to co-operate with the National Savings movement in the efforts which they are making to improve the position. The movement has the wholehearted support of the Government, whose policy is actively directed towards creating the conditions conducive to saving.

Would the Chancellor answer the second part of the Question relating to reductions in the cost of living to permit saving to take place?

I would not like to isolate any particular feature as being the cause for the situation described by the hon. Member.

But does not the Chancellor recognise that the increased cost of living during the past year has had a direct result upon the decrease in savings, and what steps does he propose to take to permit people to save more by having to spend less upon food, clothing, furniture and other articles of daily use?

If the hon.. Member had listened to answers to previous Questions this afternoon he would have realised that the efforts of the Government to reduce the cost of living have been singularly more successful than those of his own party.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that the dockers who are unemployed cannot believe there has been any improvement in the cost of living, and will he tell us how they can save some money?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the number of household articles bearing Purchase Tax today which were free of tax in 1951;

(2) which items of children's furniture are now subject to tax; and what is the tax on each item;

(3) how many items of furniture now carry Purchase Tax which were free of tax prior to the recent order; and by what proportion each item is increased.

Apart from loudspeakers, the only household articles, furniture and children's furniture now taxable which were previously free of tax are those which were within the Utility schemes and have a wholesale value in excess of the respective D relief provided in the Fourth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1952, or in the Purchase Tax (No. 8) Order, 1952. These articles are taxable only on the amount of that excess.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance regarding the lumping together of these three Questions. because the Chancellor seems to have answered Question No. 35? Household articles are quite apart from items of furniture and include napery and linen and cotton.

The point is that after the introduction of the Purchase Tax (No. 8) Order, which applies to furniture, the same principle in regard to items above the D level…which is that those above are taxed and that those below are not…was applied to all these items with the exception of the one which I have specified.

Is it not a fact that, as a result of the D Scheme being applied to furniture, all the furniture bought for normal working-class homes will be considerably dearer?

No, precisely the opposite is the case, as I shall hope to explain tomorrow. I will say no more today except that the major part, in fact nearly all of the furniture bought for the more modest homes, will be free of tax.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the talks he has had with certain industrialists and trades union representatives concerning long-term export problems

The purpose of my meeting on 17th December was to have an informal discussion on export problems. There was, of course, no question of the meeting arriving at agreed decisions, but we had a most useful exchange of views.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider removing Purchase Tax from crash helmets to encourage their use for safety purposes among motor—cyclists.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a statement on the abolition of Purchase Tax on motor-cyclists' crash helmets, in view of their very considerable life-saving properties.

I have considered this matter carefully, but regret that I cannot exempt these articles from the present tax.

Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer read the speech made last night on the radio by his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour and see whether he can meet the points made in it?

I heard of the speech but have not yet read the total text, but I will certainly do so.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he cannot reduce or take off this tax. Can he explain why?

The simple reason is that this must be classed as protective clothing. Other items of protective clothing are not relieved of tax, and I should have the greatest difficulty in isolating this item from the others.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to estimate the increase in expenditure on Treasury Bill interest during the present financial year.

I am not yet in a position to give a close estimate of the increase in this particular part of the charge for debt interest.

Why cannot the Chancellor be more candid about this? Why is he ashamed to admit what anybody can see by looking at the figures: that he has increased this expenditure by something like £100 million a year since he came into office?

I am perfectly candid. I said that it would cost more. I gave a preliminary estimate in the Budget, and it is clear that there will have to be an extra amount on top of the Budget estimate. It will not, however, be to the extent that the right hon. Gentleman says. When I can give a close and accurate figure, I shall be certainly very glad to give it to the House, because I think that the money has brought in good results.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on the Government's policy towards increases of dividends by companies.

The Government's policy towards dividends remains the same as that which I explained to the House on 7th November, 1951, when I spoke in the debate on the Address.

As so much more of the taxpayer's money has been spent on Treasury Bill interest, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he regards the increase in dividend by the National Provincial Bank as in accordance with Government policy?

There is a Question or, that which comes next, and, therefore, I do not think that I ought to answer the right hon. Gentleman.

Cannot the Chancellor say now? It is a perfectly simple question: does he regard that as in accordance with Government policy, or not?

I do not know, Mr Speaker, whether I should be in order in answering a Question which is coming next. If I am in order, I will certainly say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have no intention whatever of—

As the next Question covers the same ground, perhaps the hon. Member who put it down ought to be allowed to ask it.

asked tile Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that joint stock banks do not increase their dividends without his approval.

No, Sir.

With the permission of my right hon. Friend, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the cost of living has increased during the past year and the Chancellor is calling upon the work-people to exercise restraint in their wage demands, he does not think that it is most unhelpful of the National Provincial Bank to increase its dividends?

I have nothing to go back upon in the statement I made in the debate on the Address regarding the general attitude of the Government towards the importance of restraining dividend policy, but I am not going to put myself in the position of criticising or attempting to control the activities of the National Provincial Bank.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that he should appeal to trade unionists to exercise restraint when he is not prepared to make any appeal to the banks?

The hon. Member is rather exaggerating. I have already said that I adhere to the statement which I made for the Government that restraint in dividend policy is desirable, but I am not prepared to answer the hon. Member by saying that I will take steps to ensure that the banks do not increase their dividends, because I do not desire to take steps.

Is it not the case that the purchasing value of the dividend recently declared by the Bank is half of the dividend that they declared in 1939?

I should not like to give an exact answer to that.

Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really think that it is fair to take off food subsidies in order to give them to the banks in increased Treasury Bill interest and then to have the banks hand it on in increased dividends?

If the hon. and learned Member believes that sort of clap-trap, he will believe anything.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement upon the results achieved to date in respect of the policy of restricting loan facilities on personal and corporate accounts by the joint stock banks and other houses providing financial facilities; and what further special arrangements he proposes to make in this connection to assist and accelerate expansion of home food production.

The latest statistics of bank advances published by the British Bankers Association show that in the 12 months from November, 1951, to November, 1952, the total of advances fell from £2,016 million to £1,815 million, an overall reduction of about £200 million or 10 per cent., which is reflected in most of the individual categories, including personal and professional.

As regards bank credit for agricultural production, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) on 16th October.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that since 16th October, renewed appeals have been made for increased farming output and that the greatest factor militating against that increased output is a shortage of capital? Will he, therefore, review this matter with the joint stock banks to ascertain whether any help can be given to farmers who genuinely wish to increase output?

I certainly agree that the problem of credit is vital to agricultural production and I am satisfied that the banks have this matter under review, but I certainly undertake to keep it under review myself.

Is it not a fact that there has been a reduction of investment in agriculture over the past year—

No.

—and is it not exceedingly undesirable, in view of our dependence upon overseas supplies of food, that a reduction in capital investment should take place in so vital an industry? What steps is the Chancellor taking to see that capital is attracted into agriculture?

There has not been a reduction.

There are two matters which need to be considered. One is the question of investment in agriculture, the other is the provision of agricultural credit. I am satisfied that if the banks' figures were examined it would be seen that credit for agriculture has been very well maintained for a productive industry at a time when other productive industry has been restricted. With regard to investment in agriculture, there was a reduction of investment in the shortage of steel period, but I am satisfied that agricultural needs are so great that the point which the right hon. Gentleman puts is worthy of every attention. In fact, it has already had the attention of the Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the annual cost in foreign exchange of supplying petrol carnets for private flyers; and why he cancelled this facility, in view of the serious repercussions which this will have on the number of private aircraft and reserve pilots available in an emergency.

No accurate information is available. The facility referred to has not been cancelled. Arrangements were made to ensure that applications could be seen by the Exchange Control Authorities so that the rate of expenditure could, if necessary, be controlled. As a result of my inquiries, I have decided to allow petrol and oil to the annual value of £50 to be supplied abroad to private flyers. Special facilities will be available for flights for business purposes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this reconsideration and concession will give very great satisfaction to the flying clubs and to private Members who have been worried at this extra restriction on their activity?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will pay post-war credits to applicants who are in receipt of National Assistance.

I am afraid that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Will the Chancellor bear in mind when preparing his Budget that a number of people at present applying for National Assistance grants for clothing and things of that kind, would much rather have their own money to spend and thereby have control of their own money and at the same time not be a burden upon public funds?

I will certainly note that point.

When considering this matter in the preparation of the Budget, will the Chancellor also bear in mind the suggestion that unemployed textile workers and dockers should have their post-war credits back to help them to buy some of the goods that they cannot now get?

I will bear anything in mind, but I must not be thought to be encouraging false hopes.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the cost of labour and materials used in the minting of farthings is recovered by the sale of these coins.

Sixty per cent. of the cost of labour and materials is met by the issue of farthings at face value.

Does not that answer mean that it costs about a halfpenny to produce a farthing? In those circumstances, when will the Chancellor abandon this singularly unprofitable enterprise?

The hon. and gallant Member should look at the issue of coinage as a whole. The issue of coins at their face value pays, and farthings must not be looked at in isolation.

There is no money in it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the issue of coins pays, he would pay himself well and assist my constituents by issuing a lot more shilling pieces in the Newton-le-Willows district of Lancashire, where we are very short?

There was a Question on the Paper, which was not asked, about shillings. We are taking steps to see that there is a store of shillings available, and, in particular, available in the districts where there has been proved to be a shortage.

In considering coinage will my right hon. Friend also consider whether the time has not come to have a coin of the value of 1½d., which would be widely welcomed?

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total of the actual Budget expenditure and of revenue received as at 31st December, 1951; what are the reasons for the large increase of deficit to date; and what steps are to be taken to deal with this.

The hon. Member will find the figures in the Exchequer return published on 1st January. In reply to the rest of the Question, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not prepared to anticipate the examination of this year's out-turn which will form part of his consideration of the next Budget.

Does that answer mean that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is just as ashamed of giving figures as the Chancellor showed himself to be in answers today? Is it not a fact that the deficit has greatly increased and that the whole thing shows an appalling miscalculation? The first Budget has been followed by increased unemployment, reduced purchasing value of the £, reduced National Savings and an increased deficit. Do the Government propose to produce another like it?

The hon. Member would be ill-advised to draw that large number of conclusions from the events of a year not yet concluded.

Are we to take it from the answer that the Government have no anxiety whatever about the discrepancies so far between the Budget estimates and the actual out-turn?

That is another question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what compensation is payable to civil servants who, on grounds of public interest, are not allowed to transfer on promotion to another Government Department or to a nationalised industry.

None, Sir. But any civil servant wishing to take up an appointment with a nationalised industry is free to resign in order so to do.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make a further statement with regard to the introduction of legislation about the preservation of historic houses.

Not yet, I am afraid, but I hope to be able to do so shortly.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates would be the annual loss of revenue if the recommendations of the Gowers Report on Historic Buildings were fully implemented.

On the assumption made in the Report that about 2,000 properties would be affected, the annual loss of revenue would he about £10 million.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware of the big increases in the cost of graves provided by local authorities, examples of which have been given to him; and whether he will take steps to relieve the hardship in the case of people with low incomes.

My right hon. Friend is aware that burial costs have risen in recent years as a result of increases in wages and material costs; it is unavoidable. He has written to the hon. Member about the examples he sent him.

Is anything to be done to help the very old people who have to pay burial fees on three or four times pre-war values when many of the old age pensioners are not getting the death benefit under the scheme of the Act?

The examples given by the hon. Member show that internment fees for burial in ordinary graves, exclusive of digging charges, are 12s., and inclusive of such charges are £2 12s. 6d. and £3 15s. My right hon. Friend considers those are not unduly high in all the circumstances and that they do not carry out the accusation of hardship made by the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, following the gypsy survey that has been taken by the Kent County Council, if he will arrange for a copy of the report to be available in the Library; and in which way his Department is prepared to cooperate with the Kent County Council in an experiment that might serve as the blueprint for a solution of this problem in other parts of the country.

A copy of the report is now available in the Library. My right hon. Friend will be writing to the county council very shortly and will send a copy of the letter to the hon. Member.

I am asking what the Government are to do to put this report into action; will the hon. Member bear in mind that in most European countries Governments have done something for gypsies? What is to happen in this Christian and democratic country with regard to this gypsy problem?

As this gypsy survey was taken by Kent County Council it would be only reasonable and courteous to reply to them, which my right hon. Friend proposes to do, and I will send a copy to the hon. Member.

asked the Minister for Housing and Local Government what representations have been made to his Department by the Stoke-on-Trent local authority for permission to build a prefabricated art gallery and museum on the site prepared for it; and when he will give permission to build.

The council have submitted a proposal to build a new museum, art gallery and library at an estimated cost of £25,000, and their representatives have discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend's Department. He cannot, unfortunately, authorise this scheme in present circumstances, but, he has authorised expenditure to meet the council's immediate needs.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend not to come to a firm decision until he has received further information from the local authority and from myself which will throw new light on this rather difficult problem?

I will convey that message to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the number of cases dealt with by the Lewisham Rent Tribunal and the total number of cases heard by tribunals in Kent from 1st January, 1950, to 30th September, 1952; and why it has not been found possible to allow people adjoining the Lewisham Tribunal area to make use of the Lewisham office when seeking guidance on appropriate matters.

687 cases were dealt with by the Lewisham Tribunal, of which 183 were incompetent, invalid or withdrawn; for tribunals in Kent the corresponding figures are 1,646 and 340. As regards the second part of the Question, there is no restriction of the kind implied.