asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will remit the Purchase Tax on amusement and other equipment needed by the flood-damaged towns to replace losses suffered in the recent storms.

No, Sir. Purchase Tax or duty is only one element in the value of goods lost or destroyed in the floods, and after earnest and sympathetic consideration of all the factors involved, I am forced to the conclusion that to single out this element for separate relief would be neither practicable nor fair as between different claimants.

Since a flood of this magnitude only happens once every few hundred years, would my right hon. Friend look at this matter again since the re-equipping of these places will involve more capital than some of these smaller people possess? If they could be relieved of Purchase Tax, it would help them to start their businesses again.

I referred in my original answer to "earnest and sympathetic consideration." We had this problem at Lynmouth, and a line similar to that which I have described was taken there. This does not mean, of course, that the interests of these small people are not being considered, as will become apparent in the Home Secretary's statement, which I think is to be made tomorrow; but I am afraid that I cannot adopt this particular suggestion.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is necessary for these seaside resorts on the East Coast, which were so badly hit, to be given every encouragement to start the season, in order that in small measure they may recoup themselves for the losses which they have sustained? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's illustration of the Lynmouth disaster invalid because that happened at the end of the summer season, whereas we want to prepare for the opening of the coming season?

I have no doubt that that major consideration is, of course, already in hand. When the hon. Member hears the further statement from the Home Secretary, he will no doubt see that we desire to see that those businesses get going. The difficulty is to try to segregate something which it is almost impossible to assess fairly as between different people. It is better, therefore, to do it in the broader way that we have in mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what further action is contemplated to provide the necessary finance to meet the flood losses of householders and the business community;

(2) if he will now make a statement to clarify the situation of householders, farmers and traders whose losses in the recent flood disaster were substantial and are not covered by insurance.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that many trading concerns lost far more than £2,500 in the recent flood disaster, but that this figure is the limit which the Lord Mayor's Fund will give; that stock and equipment replacements will require far larger amounts; and if he will make an immedate statement of the Treasury's accepted liability and say how soon that liability will be met.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a full statement on compensation for loss or damage to houses, farms or business property, not covered by private insurance, as a result of the East Coast floods.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial help can be given to religious and charitable organisations whose property was damaged or destroyed in the recent floods and who are not covered by the Lord Mayor's Funds or by insurance.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet assessed the approximate losses due to the tempest on the night of 31st January-1st February which will have to be borne by public funds or private subscription, respectively, having regard especially to the fact that the Astronomer Royal has described that night's damage as due to great waves lashed to fury by the gale.

I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make on Wednesday afternoon.

Cannot the Chancellor be a little more specific, especially with regard to my Question, No. 32? Does he not yet realise that the Home Secretary made a statement to the effect that the total national loss, quite apart from the reinforcement of sea defences, was estimated to be £50 million? Does he not realise that the Lord Mayor's Fund is quite incapable of dealing with it, however generous it may be, and does he not also realise that until the question whether the losses arose from tempest or not is settled, nobody knows where he is?

It is precisely because of the magnitude of this question and its importance that I think it better to await the considered statement which the Home Secretary is going to make on all these matters, including the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, tomorrow.

Tomorrow?

Tomorrow, Wednesday. As I have discussed this matter with my right hon. and learned Friend and it has been thoroughly gone into, it would be rather difficult to anticipate the statement.

I thought it was to be on Wednesday next week.

No, tomorrow.

Is the Chancellor of the opinion that all the money which is needed for relief will be raised by the Lord Mayor's Fund, and if not, will the Chancellor give an undertaking that the Home Secretary tomorrow will make a statement about how the additional money will be raised?

The word "relief" covers a great variety of troubles, and it is quite clear that the Home Secretary's answer will cover not only those matters which can be dealt with by the Lord Mayor's Fund but also the agricultural aspect, the aspect of local authorities' expense and so forth.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of money which is available annually to the National Art Galleries and museums for the purchase of works of art; and what was the amount in 1938.

The purchase grants this year total £67,000 as compared with £59,000 in 1938. The total proposed for 1953–54 is £84,000.

Will the Chancellor bear in mind that it is the activities of each and every Chancellor for a long time that have restricted private patronage, and that, therefore, as he must agree, the State should take a greater part, as time goes by, in fostering the arts? Bearing this in mind, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that these sums will continually increase in order that we may get the very best possible advantage from these collections?

The hon. Member may find at least some satisfaction in the fact that a considerable increase is announced in my statement. As regards the future, we hope for the best.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to assure the House that any increases will not be devoted to replacing "Unknown Political Prisoner"?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether all those sections of the national galleries and museums which were closed following the economies asked for in 1952, are now open again to the public; and what approaches have been made to him by the trustees of these institutions for additional expenditure so that they could remain open for longer hours.

Six institutions closed sections or restricted public access to them. At the Wallace Collection, the Tate Gallery, the National Maritime Museum and Ham House all the public rooms are now open. At the British Museum and the Public Record Office arrangements are now being made for access to the exhibitions which were closed.

As regards hours of opening, I would refer to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory) on 18th February about the British Museum Reading Room. I have had no proposals for additional expenditure to permit longer opening elsewhere; but, that may be because the authorities of these institutions realise that it would be difficult for me to approve such an increase in addition to the other increases which are expected in 1953–54.

Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether he has noted that the Tate Gallery is open for longer hours for the present special exhibition of Mexican art, and that the exhibition has been well patronised? Would he not recognise that it is desirable that when these special shows are arranged the hours of opening of galleries and museums should be extended until at least nine o'clock?

I will examine any such suggestion. I think it might be noted that Osterley House has been open to the public this summer, and additional exhibitions are to be opened at the National Maritime Museum, the London Museum and the National Gallery, so there is a general feeling about opening.

Does my right hon. Friend's reply mean that the rooms which are at present closed every other day at the British Museum are to be open every day?

No. I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer previously given about the British Museum.

Can the Chancellor give an assurance that the Public Record Office Museum and those parts of the other museums which are now closed will be open to the public before the Coronation, as these would provide an additional amenity to our visitors?

I have said with regard to the Public Record Office that arrangements are being made to provide access to the exhibition which was closed.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proportion of the total annual revenue accruing from Purchase Tax on motorcars he estimates is paid by private individuals not entitled to make any charge against Income Tax assessment in respect of the use of a motor car for business or professional purposes or for Government service,

(2) what proportion of Purchase Tax paid on motor cars he estimates is charged over a period of years against taxation; and what proportion is in the long run retained by the Treasury.

I regret that this information is not available.

While the information may not be available, would I be far out if I made a guess of about 20 per cent, in regard to the answer to the first Question? If that is so, does it not mean that only about 20 per cent. of the total of Purchase Tax on motor cars actually remains with the Revenue?

If my hon. Friend will send me the calculations upon which he assesses 20 per cent., I will see if they are correct.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what associations have offered him advice about Purchase Tax reductions.

From time to time, practically every association representing trades concerned with Purchase Tax has offered advice on this subject.

May I ask the Chancellor what consumers' interests have been represented to him, and also what attention he pays to the housewives who have to purchase these goods?

As I said in my original reply, from time to time almost every consumer interest has indicated its point of view on this matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in negotiations with India and with Pakistan on the subject of double taxation relief; and whether he will make a statement.

Negotiations with India are still going on, but we have not yet reached agreement. Negotiations with Pakistan have not yet started.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, under his regulations, dumpers have a concession to use rebated fuel oil, whilst a vehicle made to answer the same purpose and used exclusively for work inside a gravel pit has to pay the full price.

Dumpers not constructed or adapted for use on roads are entitled under the law to use rebated heavy oils as fuel. This exception does not apply to vehicles constructed or adapted for use on roads. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, perhaps he will let me know.

I will let my right hon. Friend have the details of the case I have in mind of a dumper which never goes outside a gravel pit but in respect of which no concession is received on the fuel it uses.

It is a very complicated affair, and I will investigate my hon. Friend's case.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his undertaking that financial assistance will be made to the Carl Rosa Opera Company by the Arts Council in order that the provinces may share more fully from the grants in aid, he will say how long the negotiations have been in progress between the Carl Rosa Opera Company and the Arts Council; and what proposals have been made to the company.

No such undertaking, which would be contrary to the policy of leaving the Arts Council free to distribute these grants in their discretion, has been given. The Council and the company have been negotiating for some months. I am not in a position to say anything as to the result.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have a letter from the Financial Secretary giving me the assurance that assistance will be given? May I ask for an assurance from my right hon. Friend that that assistance will be given, in order that the present independent Carl Rosa Company will be on the road in the provinces during this year? Would my right hon. Friend like me to send the letter to him?

My hon. Friend has no need to do that, as I certainly endorse any letter sent by the Financial Secretary, especially to her. The position about this company is, of course, one which excites considerable sympathy among us all, but I must leave the negotiations between the Arts Council and this company to be concluded, because that is the best way of running these matters.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, by and large, what he has just said commends itself to most hon. Members, but nevertheless the position of provincial repertory theatres is very serious indeed, especially when they contemplate an unending vista of "Cav. and Pag." over the years?

I understand the point of view of the hon. Member.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increased dividends being offered by firms, details of which have been sent him, he will make a further statement on the steps to be taken to enforce the Government's policy of dividend restraint.

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Economic Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lough (Mr. Osborne) on 19th February.

While welcoming the Chancellor's return from his travels, may I ask him whether he has noticed what has been going on while he was away? Does he think that offers of dividends of 180 per cent. are conducive to general restraint or to the struggle against inflation?

To show how singularly well informed I am, the actual figure should be 187½ per cent. I was aware of the right hon. Gentleman's interest, even in my absence. But I would say seriously that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government that there should be continued and voluntary restraint, and I hope that remark will be apprehended in certain quarters.

Will the Chancellor take note that if dividends are artificially restricted, this removes the incentive to put capital into businesses, and if the so-called policy of the Socialist party of "fair shares for all" is carried out there will soon be nothing left to share?

I would answer my hon. Friend by saying that there is no question of artificial restriction.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the declaration of dividends like these causes real bitterness amongst the workers on the North-East Coast of England who, after all, have to work for their living?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the best way to encourage restriction of the amounts distributed by way of dividend is to give firms some inducement to put money into reserve?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so long as he continues to carry out the policy of the Labour Government on dividend restraint, he will receive full support from this side of the House against the serried ranks behind him?

All I can say in answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that we have not so far made, and I hope we never shall make, the error of falling into the artificial system which he himself contrived.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people, of working age and over, were not liable for payment of Income Tax at the time of the last Budget and how many of these were old age pensioners.

The number of people with incomes above the Income Tax exemption limit of £135 who were not liable to tax at the time of the last Budget was about 4¼ million. The Budget itself removed a further two million from liability. No information is available about the number of people with incomes below the Income Tax exemption limit or about the number of old age pensioners who were not liable to tax.

In respect of those 4¼ million people who are not liable to Income Tax—if they are not old age pensioners and do not thereby gain the mythical benefit about which the Government repeatedly tell us—would the Chancellor say how those people, if they have not three children, are expected to meet the increased cost of living?

We have been over this ground several times before. The hon. Lady knows that the variety of benefits conferred by this Government has, in the end, helped these people a great deal.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he ruled that proposals, on the lines advocated by the late Professor Irving Fisher, that the individual's liability to Income Tax should be reduced to the extent of his savings out of income and increased to the extent of his expenditure out of capital, were outside the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income.

In essence, the proposals in question would amount to a tax based on individual expenditure. I could not regard consideration of a general scheme for such a tax as properly falling within the scope of an inquiry into the system of taxation of profits and income. Moreover, it seemed to me impossible to carry through the examination of such a scheme without also inquiring into the scope and purpose of indirect taxation which enters largely into much personal expenditure, and such an inquiry would embrace matters far removed from the concept of a scheme of taxation based on profits and income.

Is the Chancellor aware that his reasons for turning down this suggestion are rather unconvincing in view of the fact that there is clearly a close relationship between Income Tax and expenditure? Would not he agree that it is extremely desirable that the Royal Commission should turn their attention to ways and means of altering the system of Income Tax in order to encourage saving and discourage dissaving?

I have already informed the Royal Commission in the sense of the answer I have given the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that I do not consider that this matter, largely due to the associated consideration of the indirect taxation aspect, falls within their terms of reference. I am afraid that I cannot go back on that decision.

As I have pointed out, the argument on which the Chancellor turned down this suggestion applies equally to Income Tax, and I would ask him to reconsider this matter. The question of savings is extremely important and I should think he would desire to encourage more personal savings. Would he, therefore, look into the matter again and reconsider it to see if he cannot give a different reply to the Royal Commission?

No one denies that this is a very interesting and rather intricate subject upon which certain people are specialising at the present time. I must adhere to my view that this is not a matter which I can add to the remit of the Royal Commission, however important it may be.

Is the Chancellor not aware that his action, first, in trying to appoint Lord Waverley, who is hardly impartial in these matters; second, in saying that the Commission may consider the total level of taxation, which is essentially a political matter; and third, in ruling out this question, which is essentially a technical matter, arouse a suspicion that he is trying to use the Commission as a political instrument?

I should have thought that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been thoroughly ashamed at referring back to the episode of Lord Waverley, when they cast an unnecessary slur on one of the major public figures of this country. On the other question, I have no reason to believe that the Royal Commission are dissatisfied, in general, with my decision. Let us look at it quite humanly: they have quite enough to do to give a report, in the independent manner in which they will give it, on what has been put to them without adding anything further.

Is the Chancellor aware that he has completely misunderstood our attitude towards Lord Waverley's appointment, that at no time did we cast any personal reflections on Lord Waverley, but that we considered, in view of his record of public utterances on the subject, that it was inappropriate that he should be chairman of this Royal Commission? Is the Chancellor not aware that his refusal to allow the Commission to consider the proposal mentioned in my Question leads us to the view that he must be very anxious that they should not consider the imposition of a tax on dis-saving, in which case he is using his power as Chancellor of the Exchequer for a very unworthy purpose—namely, for political ends.

The subject raised by the right hon. Gentleman is one of intense technical complexity which would very much widen the scope of the remit to the Royal Commission. I think he is grossly exaggerating the situation for what seem to me to be largely political purposes.

How, then, does the Chancellor expect the Commission to give any consideration to the problem of encouraging savings by amending the Income Tax system?

I do not think that the consideration, in general, of savings is confined to the approach suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the wages of women in industry have risen at the last convenient date in greater proportion than men's, but women's rates in the Civil Service, the teaching profession and local government service have risen in equal proportions, what steps he is taking to ensure that rising charges do not impose a heavier burden on women in the latter categories.

Although in 1952 women's wages in industry increased, on average, more than men's, the differentials between the wages of men and women are still generally greater in industry than in national and local government service and in the teaching profession. No such special steps as my hon. Friend suggests are, therefore, called for.

May I ask my right hon. Friend why the increases in coal and transport charges should be borne in greater measure by women in his employ than by men? Is it not about time he did something for his own employees, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and followed the good lead given by private industry?

In fact, as I have tried to indicate in my answer, the incidence of this difference is exactly the other way round.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of post-war credits outstanding to date.

Five hundred and eighty-two million pounds.

In view of this large sum of money which has been held by the Treasury for many years, would the right hon. Gentleman consider lowering the age at which post-war credits will be paid out, paying post-war credits to widows who are entitled to them and paying interest on the remainder?

These ideas are very interesting, but this is the time of year when I listen but do not say too much.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now considered the suggestion that a record should be kept of the number of holders of post-war credits who die before reaching the age for repayment.

I have considered this suggestion but I do not think that the information would be of sufficient value to justify the work involved.

Could my right hon. Friend say whether it would cost anything to keep this record?

The difficulty lies in making an exact record. I have been into the question and I do not think we should be able to record it accurately enough.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in preparing his Budget, he will reconsider the position of the dependants of holders of post-war credits who die before attaining the age for repayment.

The question of paying post-war credits to either general or particular classes of taxpayers is one of the matters which will be for consideration when I am framing my Budget proposals.

Does not the Chancellor agree that the plight of these people was one of the most unfortunate legacies of the last Government, and will he see that this anomaly is not perpetuated much longer?

I have already said that I cannot forestall my Budget statement.

How many of the judges whose salaries the right hon. Gentleman proposes to increase have already drawn their post-war credits?

Would my right hon. Friend kindly convey to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that they have spent all the money, and that, therefore, further money is not readily available to meet these commitments?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider granting definite tax concessions to companies and firms who institute co-partnership and profit-sharing schemes, and amenities for the particular welfare of their employees.

I have taken note of my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Will the Chancellor bear in mind that the peculiar merit of these desirable objects was recognised in our own Industrial Charter, and also that their value has been accepted by people of all shades of political opinion?

I have already publicly expressed my own views in favour of such a scheme, and I cannot say more today.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer observe that nearly all the profit-sharing schemes have been wiped out by the nationalised industries concerned?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of companies which have been reorganised by the liquidation of the original company; and what effect this process has had on national revenue during the last financial year.

I regret that this information is not available.

Would not the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that the reorganisations which are going on at the moment are simply for the purpose of evading tax? Would not he agree that if this is so it is a racket, and should be stopped?

I shall be glad if the hon. Member will send me any further information which I can investigate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the fact that the sale of half a limited quantity of sets of Coronation gold coins might add to the dollar reserve more than the value of the gold, what other reasons he had for abandoning the 600-year-old tradition of this country as the leading producer of gold coins.

I have nothing to add to the reply on this subject which my hon. Friend gave on 5th February.

As the Financial Secretary on another occasion gave reasons which were not confidential, may I ask the Chancellor whether he cannot repeat them because he does not think much of them?

No. I entirely support the Financial Secretary's reasons and could not improve on them myself.

Has my right hon. Friend any objection to my informing my hon. Friends, in confidence, of the Financial Secretary's reasons?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was told something in confidence. If so, he must respect that confidence. If, on the other hand, he was not told in confidence, the question of confidence does not apply.

They were not given to me in confidence.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the recent estimates of expenditure for the Coronation will be spent in Scotland, in Wales, in Northern Ireland and in England outside London, respectively.

It is not possible to state exactly where expenditure on the various services connected with the Coronation will arise. I am, however, circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT information as to the amounts specifically provided in the Estimates for the major functions outside London.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if this large sum of money is to be expended on the Coronation it is highly desirable that consideration should be given to the claims of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Principality of Wales for a substantial contribution towards the festivities in those countries, as well as the claims of England and Northern Ireland?

Reference is made to Her Majesty's visit to Edinburgh and Her Majesty's visit to Caernarvon in the account which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Chancellor or the Exchequer to what extent the Organisation and Methods Department of the Civil Service has been employed in connection with expenditure incurred for the Coronation.

There is very little scope for O and M inquiries in connection with the Coronation arrangements. The Earl Marshal's Office sought O and M advice in setting up its records, and, in the Ministry of Works, O and M participated in making the arrangements for the sale of seats in stands.

Is the Chancellor aware that when he was in America searching for dollars the Departments indulged in an orgy of reckless spending and that the bill is now up to £2 million? Would he consider diverting some of this to reducing the cost to parents of school meals?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I went to America to seek that we should earn dollars. That is the correct description of my trip to America. I was in close touch with the figures of Government expenditure the whole time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take to assist 30,000 mothers who have had to meet a 13 per cent. increase in food prices during 1952, and who have no family allowance for their first child.

It is difficult to establish the particular class of mothers to which the hon. Member refers. I enumerated in my last Budget speech the wide range of cases where I found it practicable to increase social benefits, including family allowances.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not encounter any difficulty in classifying when he gave the 3s. increase to all classes in respect of children after the first child? Is he aware that in the case of many large families the ration is not being taken and is being distributed to other people who have no children? Will he not now do something for the first child?

The sincere difficulty which I face about the first child is that on the basis of 8s., the gross cost—without savings on National Assistance—would be no less than £131 million, which is a big figure to envisage, and the net cost would be £128 million. The difficulty about the hon. Lady's Question is that I do not know how to segregate these 30,000 mothers. I think it would be rather invidious to try to do so.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the average level of food prices is approximately 13 per cent. higher than in mid-December, 1951, and the average index figure of the cost of living 9 per cent. higher for the same period; and, in view of the repercussions that these increases have on our wages and exports, if he will now indicate his policy in regard to price increases.

I must ask the hon. Member to await my forthcoming Budget speech.

While I am awaiting that speech, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember the promise which he made in his election speeches that he would make the most intense attack ever made upon the cost of living? Would he read the fourth verse of the 24th chapter of St. Matthew?

I am very well aware of the quotation to which the hon. Lady refers. While she is thinking about my speech, I will study the Scripture.

Is it not true that the attack which the Chancellor is making on those prices has recently shown some signs of succeeding?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no item of foodstuff has gone down in price since the Government have been in power and that the cost of living has gradually gone up and never once has gone down? Is it not a fact that, as a result of the last Budget, the people of this country have been placed in the position of not being able to take up their rations? How will that help them when the right hon. Gentleman further reduces subsidies in his next Budget?

Despite the policy of reducing the food subsidies, the cost-of-living index has for some time been held steady, and a great many commodities have come down in price.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the recent cases in which Crown Appeals in matters relating to Estate Duty have been disallowed by the House of Lords; and whether, in view of the uncertainties and inequities now constantly arising, especially in regard to aggregation, he will consider as a matter of urgency amending the law in the forthcoming Finance Act.

Yes, but my hon. Friend will not expect me to say anything now as to the contents of the forthcoming Finance Bill.

I appreciate that, but, in view of my right hon. Friend's desire to help British industry, will he bear in mind that, daily, serious damage is being done, especially to small businesses, by this ill-considered, antiquated and inequitable Estate Duty?

I am aware, of course, of the adverse decision given in the House of Lords affecting the whole of this problem, but I cannot say any more at present.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, to bring the dog licence in line with the modern value of the £, he will increase it from 7s. 6d. to £2s.

I regret that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this suggestion would, if adopted, put great hardship on old age pensioners, and that, in so far as it is to help stop sheep worrying, I have put forward a constructive suggestion?

I am aware of the pros and cons of the present position.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his further discussions with overseas Governments on currency matters, he will now state what is to be the foreign currency allowance for United Kingdom travellers outside the sterling area during 1953.

I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the right hon. Gentleman on 24th February.

As the Chancellor is, after all, the servant of the public, can he not show a little more consideration to the public, and undertake to make a statement at least well before Easter?

The answer is that if there is a statement to be made it will be made.

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make a statement before Easter?

I have nothing whatever to add to the answer to the original Question on 24th February or to what I have said today.

What is stopping the Chancellor making up his mind on this matter?

The reason I have stopped answering is that I have no statement to make.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the Committee set up by the Chancellor last year to study and report upon the difficulties which traders would experience by alterations in Purchase Tax, may be expected to report.

Since my hon. and gallant Friend put down his Question the Report of the Committee on Tax-Paid Stocks which sat under the Chairmanship of Sir Maurice Hutton has been published as a White Paper. The Government are much indebted to the Committee for their clarification of a difficult question. We accept their recommendation against any rebates in respect of tax-laden stocks on a reduction of duty or tax. Equally, when rates of duty or tax are increased, we should be averse from any Government action which prevented a trader increasing his prices. We agree, therefore, with the Committee when they say that,

"If the State does not intervene on the downward change, neither should it do so on the upward."

The Government are also in broad agreement with the Committee in their second and third recommendations.

The questions involved in the Committee's two final recommendations are of a rather technical character which will need careful examination and may require to be discussed with the trade interests concerned. At present, therefore, I cannot make any definite statement on these two points.

Regarding the Report itself, do the Government accept Recommendation 1 (b) as applicable in times of scarcity and the reimposition of price control? Is my hon. Friend aware that traders, specially small traders, throughout the country are bitterly disappointed at the findings of the Report, and are hopeful that the Government may find some way round total acceptance of the Recommendations?

In reply to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, I would say that naturally in the circumstances which he has described the Government might have to re-examine the position as it then was, but the Government fully accept the principle that in normal competitive trading conditions they should not take action to prevent traders selling existing stocks at higher prices when the rates are increased. As to the second part of the supplementary question, I hope hon. Members will carefully consider in particular paragraphs 199 to 201 of the Report, where this difficult question is argued very thoughtfully.

Have there been any representations on the Report's findings from the National Chamber of Trade?

I should want notice of that question.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what steps he took in 1952, and what steps he proposes to take in 1953, in order to reduce the cost of carrying out the duties of the Treasury.

The answer to both parts of the Question is "A great many." The Estimates for the Treasury (including the Capital Issues Committee and the delegation in Washington but excluding subordinate departments) indicate broadly the reductions achieved in 1952—staff reduced as at 31st March, 1952, and 1953 respectively from 1,518 to 1,488 and cost from £1,280,000 to £1,248,000. Similarly the estimates for 1953 show that we hope by March, 1954. to reduce staff to 1,387 and costs to £1,209,000.

Would my hon. Friend ensure that the excellent example of the Treasury is followed by other Departments?

It is an example of the fact that economy, like charity, still begins at home.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the provision for salaries of Members of Parliament in the Estimates for 1953–54 is £6,476 less than for the current year.

The combined effect of an increase in the numbers of hon. Members forgoing salary, in the total number of Members of this House holding Ministerial appointments, and in the number of junior Ministers drawing salary as such, is to reduce by £6,476 the provision required for payment of Parliamentary salaries.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many applications for remission of import duties under Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1924. are at present under consideration by his Department, or have been under consideration since the last Budget other than those which had been submitted before the final closing time.

I assume that the hon. Member has in mind Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1932. On this assumption the answer is, "None, Sir."

Can the Financial Secretary say why the engineering division of the Ministry of Supply are still writing to manufacturers—I have copies of letters of as recent date as January. 1953—saying that they have under consideration this Section and applications to be dealt with under this Section, and wasting the time of the manufacturers by asking if they can supply the necessary machines. Would it not be as well for him to tell the Minister of Supply what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said 12 months ago?

That is a question which I think should properly be put to my right hon. Friend.

The responsibility under this Section lies with the Treasury, and is it not really remarkable that in this businessmen's Government a decision taken last March has apparently not yet gravitated down to the Minister of Supply, and will he do something about it?

I do not accept for a moment the implication of the hon. Member's supplementary question so far as the Minister of Supply is concerned, and I would suggest that the satisfactory manner of handling this matter is for him to argue this out with my right hon. Friend.

In view of the hon. Gentleman's answer—and as I have copies of the correspondence—I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider (1) organising a competition among senior civil servants for ideas on economies that might be made in the service, such a competition to be organised so as to preserve the anonymity of civil servants and to be judged by an independent tribunal;

(2) asking senior civil servants for their ideas on how economies could be effected, not only in their own Departments, but generally throughout the Civil Service.

My hon. Friend seems to be under the impression that senior civil servants are loth to suggest how economies could be achieved in the administration of public services. That is not my experience. I am satisfied that Ministers get the benefit of their advice and assistance without the need to resort to the devices suggested.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether senior civil servants are encouraged to put forward their proposals for economies in Departments other than their own and, if so, what is the machinery at the Treasury for examining those proposals?

The answer, in short, is that the Treasury have a team of very competent supply officers whose business it is to nose into other people's affairs.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how much money was refunded to the British Transport Commission in 1952 for sleeping berths reserved for, but not taken up by, civil servants on trains travelling to Scotland.

I am making inquiries about this matter and will write to the right hon. Gentleman.

I do not want a written reply. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in his inquiries, he will satisfy himself that cancellations are not allowed too near the time of the departure of the train, so causing great inconvenience to the travelling public; and is he aware that I have constantly found myself twentieth or thirtieth on the list the day before the train goes, and then, somehow or other, the passengers melt away like snow in August, and I get in quite safely, and there are compartments to spare?

This question caused a great deal of trouble up to 1948, when the general priority system in respect of the public service was abolished. If difficulties arise on a much more restricted scale now in any Department, I will do my best to remedy them. I appreciate the force of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what further steps have been taken to reduce the number of sleeping berths reserved for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries in Whitehall, which is in itself as important as the Question put by my right hon. Friend.

That is another Question.