asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the financial hardships suffered by pensioners who served in the Prison Service in Scotland owing to the disparities between their pensions and the present high cost of living; what representations he has received on their behalf from the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance (Scottish Branch); and if he will now specify the steps he is taking to remove the grievances of which they complain.

As public service pensioners these pensioners are included in the review referred to by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 27th October.

Does the Chancellor agree that, in the case of public servants, not to approximate their pay to the rising cost of living amounts to something in the nature of breach of contract and fraud? Will he try to approximate their pay to the rising cost of living?

I must answer the Question on the Order Paper. Fortunately I was able to give the hon. and learned Gentleman a favourable answer. If there is any further aspect which he wishes to raise, I hope he will write to me about it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when these pensioners obtain employment to supplement their pension they receive a corresponding cut in the pension paid to them? Would he look at that aspect of the matter?

Yes, Sir. I am aware of these problems and I will certainly take into consideration the point raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy).

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage increase of wages since 1946 and what has been the percentage increase in income derived from rent, dividends and interest since 1946.

Between 1946 and 1954 wages increased by 89 per cent. and personal receipts of rent, dividends and interest by 30 per cent. Figures are not yet available for 1955.

Mr. Lewis.

On a point of order. This is a rather important Question, Mr. Speaker, on which I should like to put a supplementary question.

I had called the next Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as from the commencement of the next financial year, he will make facilities available to local authorities for drawing interest-free loans from the Treasury for housing purposes, up to a specified annual total.

No, Sir.

If the Chancellor will not agree to the suggestion contained in the Question to make facilities generally available, will he favourably give consideration to it in respect of bomb-damaged cities and boroughs, because of their peculiar position? Will he consider providing the facilities at least for a period of time, until they have got over their bomb-damage troubles?

I realise that this is a particular problem but I am afraid that I cannot add to my Answer. If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer on that point he had better put down a specific Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the alterations in the method of local government borrowing, he will introduce legislation to confer trustee status on loans issued by urban and rural district councils.

Some of these authorities already have trustee status for their loans. Proposals to extend it to all of them were announced on 27th July by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The proposals have since been agreed with representatives of the local authorities and will be the subject of legislation when opportunity offers.

Can my right hon. Friend say how soon he thinks this legislation will be introduced? Can he name the date? That would help the local authorities.

No, but I will see that the attention of the Leader of the House is drawn to the Question of my hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the response to Glasgow Corporation's recent application for a loan of £5 million in the open market he will reconsider his policy and restore freedom to local authorities to borrow through the medium of the Public Works Loan Board.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that 87 per cent of the Glasgow Corporation's latest loan has been left with the underwriters and that this will have an adverse effect on future attempts by local authorities to raise money on the open market, if he will now revise his policy and grant greater facility for loans to be granted from the Public Works Loan Board.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the failure of the recent Glasgow Corporation loan, he will reconsider his policy on local authority borrowing.

The Answer is "No, Sir."

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his Answer will be received with the greatest resentment by local authorities throughout the country? Is he further aware that the Glasgow local authority has been forced into the market for a loan, in accordance with a statement made by the Chancellor himself in his Budget speech, and that when Glasgow is joined by other local authorities the interest charge on money is likely to soar? Is that not evidenced by the statement made today that Liverpool local authority is offering stock at 97 whereas Glasgow offered it at 98½, and is not the Chancellor assisting speculators to rig the market?

That was the first loan, and we know that in the final stage it was commercially underwritten by the market. I do not think that the Corporation of Glasgow will suffer. We shall learn from the experience of that loan, and I trust that the next one, namely the Liverpool loan, will have more success.

Is the Chancellor aware that in this sense he has become the Santa Claus of the money changers? Does he realise that, while he is the hero of the sharks of the Stock Exchange and the Shylocks of the City, he has come to be known as No. 1 enemy of local authorities?

I realise that there has been a marked change in the method of financing local authorities, and that this was done on purpose, as part of Government policy. Further, I realise that I am not quite so popular with some of the gentlemen in the City as the hon. Gentleman imagines.

Is the Chancellor not aware of the fact that the real reason for the financial flop of the City of Glasgow £5 million loan was the inefficiency of the Socialist administration, and is it not akin to the situation in which the nation found itself when the Socialist party left office?

Is the Chancellor really satisfied about a position in which a local authority of the size and standing of Glasgow cannot borrow at a yield of £4 17s. per cent., and in which other local authorities are being forced to offer a longer term and a rather higher rate of interest, and thus saddle themselves with the very high interest charges which his present policy puts upon them for an even longer period than Glasgow had to accept?

I realise the difficulties this involves for local authorities, and I am very sympathetic to them. However, in the national interest, from the point of view of the below-the-line Budget, in my view it was essential to make a change in the method of financing local authorities.

Does not the Chancellor realise that this humiliating experience of the Glasgow Corporation will make it infinitely more difficult for smaller local authorities to borrow, except at exorbitant rates of interest which, in turn, will make it impossible for them to carry out works of local importance?

I do not agree that this was a humiliating experience. Glasgow happened to be the pioneer, and pioneers sometimes have rather a difficult time.

Though we all realise the difficulties, can the Chancellor tell us what are the advantages of this procedure?

I outlined them in my original Budget statement.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the letter on rates of interest for public loans from the Town Clerk of Maybole forwarded to him by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire; and what action he will take in the matter.

Yes, Sir; but I regret that I cannot agree to the town clerk's suggestion.

Is the Minister aware that the town council requires the money for a sewerage scheme? Is he now proposing to tax sanitation and make it more difficult for local authorities to improve public health in their areas?

No, Sir; I am not proposing to tax sanitation. No doubt the local authority will be able to get its money in one of the ways suggested.

asked the Chancellor of Exchequer whether he will state the Government's policy with regard to the recent Report on Civil Service salaries.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Government intend to take on the Report of the Commission on Civil Service salaries.

This detailed and careful Report requires close study and the Government are not yet in a position to form views on it. The recommendations will need to be discussed on the National Whitley Council. There has already been a preliminary exchange of views between the two sides of that Council about the machinery for dealing with the questions raised.

Has the Chancellor's attention been drawn to the statement of the General Secretary of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants to the effect that the Institution strongly objects to the fact that civil servants with lower incomes will get hardly anything out of the Report whilst those getting rather heavy incomes, or excessive incomes, will do very well out of it? Will he bear in mind the point of view of that organisation on this matter?

Yes, Sir. I have observed that, but I think the important thing is to follow the ordinary procedure and wait for the National Whitley Council to review the Report.

Does not the Chancellor consider that this Report brings to the forefront the question of Ministerial salaries, and particularly the salaries of junior Ministers? How much longer are we to wait before the Government accept their responsibilities, at least towards the latter?

That raises a wider question than that on the Order Paper. I should like to take the opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the members of the Royal Commission for the work which they have performed.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the estimated total national investment carrying a fixed rate of interest, such as bank deposits, national savings investments and building society deposits, which have no Stock Exchange quotation, and which cannot show an increase in nominal value;

(2) the total nominal capital of all securities quoted on the London Stock Exchange; how much is fixed-interest-bearing capital and equity capital, respectively; and the average rise or fall in the market value of each group, respectively, since 1924.

As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Osborne.

I cannot ask supplementary questions on information that is not given.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the purchasing power of the £ today, approximately, as compared with 20s. in 1924.

Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ as 20s. in 1924, it is estimated that the corresponding figure for October, 1955, is 8s. 8d. This estimate is based on the Cost of Living Index from 1924 to 1938, the consumer price index from 1938 to 1954, and the Interim Index of Retail Prices thereafter.

Does this 8s. 8d., coupled with the figures I shall receive in answer to Questions Nos. 5 and 6, show that the investing public, the savers of the nation as a whole, over the last thirty years have lost a great deal of money through inflation, instead of gaining?

Inflation never helps savers or those on fixed incomes. That is precisely why we are attacking inflation, with such success.

Ignoring that last joke by the Chancellor, may I ask whether he saw an article in the Manchester Guardian last week showing that anyone who purchased a representative £1 million worth of equity shares in 1919 would find that those same shares were worth £27 million at the present time?

I have not seen that instance; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will bring it to my notice. Usually we get complaints from the other side of the House about people making gross profits. On this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman is complaining about losses.

indicated dissent.

Is not a very satisfactory hedge against all inflationary tendencies greater investment in tax-free National Savings Certificates?

Yes, Sir.

Since, obviously, the right hon. Gentleman misheard what I said, may I ask whether he is aware that the figures in the Manchester Guardian, which related to the Financial Times index of securities, showed an increase of from £1 million to nearly £27 million in equity shares?

I did mishear. In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly let me see the figures?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, assuming the purchasing power of the £ in March, 1946, to be equal to 20s., what was the value of the £ in March, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and in November, 1955.

I will, with permission, circulate the reply, which contains a number of figures, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

What point does the Chancellor expect the value of the £ to have reached by November, 1956?

Answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider adopting as an additional tool of economic analysis the flow of funds system which has been recently introduced into the United States of America by the Federal Reserve Board, and details of which have been sent to him.

My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that some features of this method of analysis are already in the National Income Blue Book, 1955—e.g. Tables 26, 27, 34, 38, 41, 45—and the Economic Survey, 1955—e.g. Table 21. I will consider whether further progress can be made in this direction.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the advantages to him in managing the monetary credit policy of the country if he is able to have the more detailed information on the flow of credit and funds between various sectors of the economy that exists in this flow of funds system of accounting?

Yes, Sir. That is precisely why I said that we will consider whether further progress can be made in this direction.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in furtherance of the policy of siphoning off existing purchasing power, he will consider the issuing of pension bonds, redeemable at retiring age in annuity form, as an attractive means of encouraging savings.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this suggestion, but I would point out that the life offices and friendly societies issue deferred annuities. I have no reason to believe that the facilities which they offer are inadequate.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I, however, ask him to keep this idea in view as a voluntary supplement to the various compulsory measures of saving?

Yes, certainly. There is still power, I suppose, for the Government to take action of this sort, but I consider that the possibilities for the life offices and friendly societies are sufficient to meet the present problem.

Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that his policy of siphoning off purchasing power and encouraging savings is being assisted by commercial television?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the formation of gross fixed capital of £1,059,000,000 in electricity, compared with £60 million on the construction of roads in the years 1948 to 1954, he is satisfied that a proper balance of priorities between these two important industries is being kept; and if he will make a statement.

I am, of course, aware that we have had to press on with electricity and to go much more slowly with roads. I cannot accept that a proper balance of priorities is not being kept. Expenditure on roads will rise substantially under the programme already announced.

Looking at the picture broadly, does it not appear that we have been going rather too fast in electricity over the last six years?

Not fast enough.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that spending about £200 million a year in electricity, which is already a heavily-loaded section of the engineering industry, tends to add to inflationary pressure?

Of course, we are watching the plans of all the nationalised industries in respect of the possible effect upon inflation. But we have needed this electrical development to match our industrial expansion, which has been so marked under the present Administration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that unless the worker gets more power behind his elbow in the form of electricity and energy, the country will not be able to survive and keep its population, however good its roads may be?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he proposes to do to rectify the anomaly by which a blind man of Norwich in receipt of National Assistance, whose particulars have been sent to him, has been deprived of his tobacco tokens.

I regret that when, as in this case, a pensioner loses his title to the non-contributory old-age pension, he necessarily ceases to be entitled to tobacco tokens. But there may be an alternative approach in this case, and I am writing to the hon. Member.

May I thank the Chancellor for the hope of effective action being taken in this case?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the pension of a retired civil servant is abated when he takes up remunerative employment outside the Civil Service on retirement.

The pension is not abated.

While not suggesting that the pension should be abated, may I ask on what grounds of equity the Chancellor defends the position that an old-age pensioner who retires on the present miserable pittance is not allowed to earn more than £2 a week without having that pension cut?

The cases are not absolutely analogous. I am simply giving the rules which apply to the Civil Service pensioner employed by a new employer outside the public sector.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the future of the National Land Fund.

I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Is the Chancellor aware that it is particularly disappointing, in view of his well-known interest in the arts and in amenity considerations, that he has not been able to make better use of this Fund? Can he at least confirm that the matter is still under consideration?

Certainly, it is a matter which causes us all a great deal of interest, and, of course, it does look a very tempting Fund.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, as an incentive to the establishment of secondary industries in the British West Indies, he will grant a five-year tax holiday to British firms opening factories in the Caribbean in respect of profits made out there during that period.

I am considering the general question of the taxation of overseas trading profits in the light of the Royal Commission's recommendations. I cannot anticipate the outcome, but the point which my hon. Friend has in mind will not be overlooked.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, when considering this matter, that West Indian Governments give this tax concession to encourage the secondary industries that are so desperately needed out there, but that Her Majesty's Treasury nullifies the whole effect of the incentive value by imposing on firms here the tax on their West Indian profits? Does this really make sense, if we want the West Indies to help to diversify their almost completely agricultural economy?

I am aware of what is known technically as frustration, which is, in fact, frustration in fact. I am, therefore, re-examining this whole question in the light of the Royal Commission's recommendations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as he has not given this concession, the result is that a lot of dollar capital is flowing into the Caribbean and much sterling capital that would like to go there is prevented from so doing by the Treasury's policy of not allowing some concession to match the concession in the tax policy given by many islands in the Caribbean?

I am aware of the problem but there is a great deal of difference of opinion about the solution of the difficulty. However, I have given an undertaking that the matter is under urgent consideration.

Will the Chancellor also consider, to assist the idea of a property-owning democracy, giving a tax concession to all people who want to buy their own homes?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total cost to the Exchequer of tax remissions allowed in respect of payments made in the financial year 1954–55 to superannuation funds by business firms and by their employees, respectively.

The estimated cost was between £60 million and £70 million, and between £10 million and £15 million, respectively.

Does not that show that these superannuation schemes, desirable in principle as they are, are to a very considerable extent sustained by public taxation, and that about two-thirds of all employed persons are subscribing through taxation to special pension arrangements for one-third of the employed population?

Of course, this issue was raised before the Phillips Committee, and I do not think that I should like to comment in detail on the hon. Member's point on this matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that certain restaurants and night clubs are advertising cabaret shows of two hours' duration on which no Entertainments Duty is payable; and, in view of the anomalies which this situation creates, whether he will now extend this tax exemption to theatres and music halls.

Cabaret shows are not, as such, exempt from Entertainments Duty, but if there is no payment for admission to an entertainment, whether at a restaurant or elsewhere, no liability to duty arises. I do not regard this as a ground for the repeal of the duty on theatres and music halls.

Is the Chancellor not aware that this is really evasion of the law which at present applies to music halls and theatres? Is he aware that the two hours' cabaret entertainment, which is about the normal length of an entertainment in a music hall, is given for high charges at restaurants without the payment of Entertainments Duty? Will he not look at the question again and remove the anomaly by exempting live entertainment in music halls and theatres from tax?

I look at the problem more than I look at cabarets, and I find it to be a very difficult one indeed to which to give a simple answer. The point is that where there is no payment for admission to an entertainment, whether at a restaurant or elsewhere, no liability to duty arises, and I see some difficulty in altering the law on that point, but I will certainly bear it in mind.

Would it not be the case that part of the charge for the meal must include some part of the cost of the entertainment provided?

That is precisely one of the facts which my officers find it most difficult to ascertain.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend to provincial art galleries the facilities now offered to national institutions to acquire works of art which might otherwise be exported and which it is considered to be in the public interest to retain in this country.

The terms of reference of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art extend to provincial museums and galleries as well as to the national institutions. In the period covered by its recent Report, only three out of seven cases considered by the Committee were referred by national institutions; and in each of the other four cases the Committee upheld an objection by a provincial institution to the grant of an export licence.

Did the Treasury make any contribution towards the purchases in question? If so, could we be given the details, perhaps in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

I should have to look to see exactly what occurred. I do not think I could give an affirmative answer to that question without further examination.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the nature of the reply sent to the Tyldesley and Astley Miners' Association, representing 4,800 mine workers, following their protest against certain of the Budget proposals.

The Association's telegram was acknowledged and I took note of their views.

While no one would expect that the Chancellor would start a correspondence course with all those people who dislike his policies, may I ask whether he appreciates that this is one of the largest trade union branches in the Lancashire coal fields, and that this was no flippant protest? Would it not be very much better, in a case like this, if, instead of a formal acknowledgment, a reasoned reply were sent, without adding to the bad policy?

I certainly welcome the opportunity afforded by this Question to assure the members, who number about 4,800 mine workers, that I did take note of their views, and I hope that they will understand my difficulty in answering the very many communications I receive, many of them of a most favourable character.

Is not the proper channel of communication that through the Member of Parliament, and is not the implication here that those mine workers are dissatisfied with their Member of Parliament?

Is the Chancellor aware that the Budget imposes Purchase Tax on working-men's cloth caps and removes it from bowlers? What does the Chancellor think the miners, dockers and engineers will have to say about that?

That is a rather technical point which is mixed up with the abolition of the D Scheme. In the old days the cloth cap had a D, and the bowler did not.

Can the Chancellor tell us whether this present revelation about his Budget is correct?

I have just said that the cloth cap had a D, and so certain caps escaped Purchase Tax, whereas bowlers did not.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a number of valuation assistants employed on rating valuers' duties in the valuation office of Inland Revenue, have not been promoted to Valuer, Class III, whereas younger, less senior and, in some cases, less qualified, officers have received this promotion and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Members' Question on this subject on 26th July. 1955.

Is the Chancellor aware that that reply was "No"? Will he now say whether that answer meant, "No, the question is not true," or "It is true, but I do not intend to do anything about it?" Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these men are doing an extremely valuable and responsible job? Will he not consider the matter again to see that they get the rate of pay and rank for the job?

I think that had better be dealt with through the normal departmental promotion procedure.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the hardship suffered by retiring women civil servants whose pensions were reckoned on unequal salaries, and in view of the recent gradual introduction of equal pay in the public services, he will, in the current review of the Pensions (Increase) Acts, reassess the pensions of such women as if they had been receiving equal pay at the time of their retirement.

No, Sir. Both sides of the Civil Service National Whitley Council accepted with regret that this was not practicable in respect of women retiring during the period of the gradual implementation of equal pay. Still less is it practicable for women who retired earlier.

Is the Chancellor not aware that the Chorley Report dealing with the salaries of the higher-grade civil servants recommended that their pensions should be based on a notional salary, and if it is possible to do that for the higher grades, why is it not for the lower grades?

Alas, both sides agreed it was impossible. I have a copy of their printed Report in my hand.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate amount spent annually on wages, salaries, and allowances of all those engaged in industries working wholly or mainly to Government defence orders.

I regret that the information is not available.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet been able to give consideration to the question of allowing Income Tax relief to those parents who pay tuition fees at independent schools and colleges; and what decision he has arrived at.

The Answer to the first part is that this question has been considered. I cannot anticipate the next Budget.

Can my right hon. Friend say what would be the cost to the Exchequer and the extra number of teachers and schools required if all these people sent their children to the other schools? Do they not perform a great public service by paying for the education of their children, always at great personal sacrifice, and do they not deserve some such help as this in doing so?

I have not the statistics of what the swelling in the school population would be if all people who send their children to private schools were to send them to the general schools of the country. I agree that a certain degree of sacrifice is involved, and I endeavoured in the last Budget to give some child relief, which, I think, must have been of some help.

Since it is rather early in the financial year for the Chancellor to be anticipating the next Budget, are we to assume from his remarks that we are to expect another supplementary Budget before the normal Budget next April?

I think we have had enough Budgets for the time being.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect upon the United Kingdom balance of payments iron, steel, metalliferous scrap and coal imports have had during 1955, compared with 1954; the aggregate sums involved in each of the years concerned; and what fiscal, and other steps he proposes to take to minimise the impact of these imports upon the national economy during 1956, notably in the industrial consumption of coal.

I regret I can only give trade figures. Imports c.i.f. of iron and steel, metalliferous scrap and coal amounted in aggregate to just over £142 million in January to September, 1955, as against £42 million in the corresponding period of 1954, an increase of some £100 million. Recent measures are designed to reduce the burden of such imports on the balance of payments in 1956. In addition, as has already been announced, we shall export a smaller amount of coal in 1956; and I am being supported by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power by the steps he is taking to secure economy in the use of coal by industry, particularly during the winter months.

As large-scale coal imports are now evidently a permanent feature of our national economy, would my right hon. Friend not reconsider what has been urged upon him by both sides of the House in successive Finance Bill debates during the last few years, namely, offering some fiscal incentive for much greater fuel economy both in the home and in industry?

That is a matter which I certainly discuss from time to time with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Fuel and Power.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a statement of the results achieved in reducing and deferring certain capital expenditure of an inessential character, by the nationalised industries, and the sums involved, in accordance with the economic and financial policy announced in July, 1955.

Not yet, Sir; their investment programmes are now being reviewed.

Yes, but is not my right hon. Friend aware that I have been trying to get some information about this subject for four months? Is he aware that, as the capital investment programme of the nationalised industries is a great deal larger than that of the local authorities, and we have had full information about the local authorities, it is propitious, at least before Christmas, that there should be detailed answers about the capital investment programmes of the nationalised industries?

It depends upon whether we have finished examining their investment programmes, which are of great importance to the nation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums will be required on 31st December next for capital and interest payments on the Canadian and United States loans; what sums including interest will have been paid in aggregate 1951–1955 inclusive, against these loans; and what discussions and negotiations have taken place with a view to securing repayment in sterling.

Twenty-two and a half million dollars will be required for the interest and 15·2 million dollars for the principal on the Canadian loan, and 87 million dollars for the interest and 55·4 million dollars for the principal on the United States loans. The total payments made since 1951 will then amount to 188·5 million dollars for interest and principal on the Canadian loan, and 727·4 million dollars for interest and principal on the United States loans.

The joint statement regarding the settlement of Lend-Lease, etc.—Cmd. 6708, as amended by Cmd. 8586—provides that certain limited payments may be made to the United States Government in £ sterling at their request and credited against the dollar payments due under the settlement. No discussion or negotiation on rates of interest has taken place since the conclusion of the Agreements relating to these loans.

In consideration of the fact that the principle is now evidently accepted by both the United States and Canada of accepting at least part payment in sterling, can my right hon. Friend say whether negotiations could not be opened with a view to future American and Canadian loan repayments being made, at least in part, in sterling as in the case of commodities?

This raises very big issues, but all that I can do is to indicate to my hon. Friend that the point which he has made will be noted.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has made to the letter from the British Pottery Manufacturers' Federation, dated 29th November, 1955, on the subject of the effects of Purchase Tax on the pottery industry.

I am considering these representations and will write to them shortly.

is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this letter comes from a source not politically hostile to him, but it contains devastating replies to Treasury arguments in favour of a Purchase Tax on pottery? In considering it, will he not repent, confess his error and wipe away the tax?

The answer to that, briefly, regret, is "No, Sir."

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on future Government policy relating to the Purchase Tax.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his future policy in regard to indirect taxation on consumer goods.

I have nothing to add to what I said on this subject during the Committee stage, namely that we have no ready-made scheme for a general sales tax. Hon. Members would be very unwise to underestimate the complexity and difficulty of introducing any such tax.

Does the Chancellor think it either wise or proper that his intentions about his next Budget, whenever that will be, should be made known by way of casual hints and leaks at private meetings upstairs?

I do not know what the right hon. Member is referring to. I made a statement in Committee which exactly corresponds with the statement that I have made here and which represents my view.

How does the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that we had inspired statements in the Press last week that there was to be a sales tax, and a few days later inspired statements that there was not to be one? Could the right hon. Gentleman not clear the whole matter up by informing us now that he has no intention of instituting a sales tax?

The matter is set out absolutely clearly in the reply which I have just given. It corresponds with what I said in Committee, and no doubt will say during the Report stage. As for the Press, this is a free country and there is a free Press, and, as far as I am concerned, the Press can say what it likes.

Why is the Chancellor so coy about his intentions? If he is not going to introduce it in his next Budget, why not say so now? It would obviate a great deal of unnecessary disturbance and speculation.

That is precisely the reason for the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).

Does the Chancellor not realise that the contradictory statements which he is making are very disturbing to the whole of the retail trade and the public? Does he not think it is his duty to make a clear pronouncement as to whether he intends to introduce a sales tax in the next Budget?

I cannot add to what I have already stated, and it would be wise for hon. and right hon. Members to pay attention to what I have said in Committee and this afternoon.

Whilst we are always ready to pay attention to what the Chancellor says in Committee, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the second time in a month that an apparently concerted Press story has appeared—all on the same morning—about the Chancellor's tax intentions? Is he aware that the other story, relating to rumours that he might take off the kitchen taxes, caused even more disturbance to trade? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that any statement, including any hints on this question, will be given to the House of Commons and not at private conferences with the Press and elsewhere?

All that I have had to say on taxes has been said in Committee. I have nothing to add to the many answers that I gave during the five-day discussions on the Purchase Tax Resolutions and during the Budget discussions, and I see no reason for the right hon. Member's statements.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the change in the value of money, he will raise the figure of £500 worth of output under which Purchase Tax is not payable in respect of various craft productions.

I will bear this point in mind, though there would be great difficulty in raising the present limit. It already gives rise to complaints of unfair competition which are difficult to rebut.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the limit was originally fixed at £2,000, and that this suggestion of an increase over £500 seems to be the easiest way of saving some of the small craft industries from virtual extinction? I cannot believe that the fall in the value of money would make that difference.

I read and listened to the speech of the hon. Member on this subject in the debates on the Finance Bill. As I say, I will bear this point in mind, but I cannot give any undertaking.

Will my right hon. Friend realise that the sum of £500 is quite unrealistic, particularly for the small producers in the rural areas, who collectively play an important part in the rural economy of the remote areas?

Yes, I am aware of that anxiety.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage he anticipates private expenditure will be reduced as a result of his recent Budget.

In the Financial Statement estimates were given of the expected yield of the tax changes introduced in the Budget. These estimates give an indication of the direct effect on private purchasing power of the fiscal measures introduced by the Government. The course of private expenditure will, however, be influenced directly and indirectly by the whole range of measures to regulate demand which the Government have introduced, including the policy of credit restriction.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether his policy is also directed to obtaining an equal or similar reduction in the amount of public expenditure as in private expenditure?

Yes, Sir. I made statements on the subject of public expenditure at the time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates would be the additional yield in a full year from Income Tax and Profits Tax on business profits at the rates prevailing in 1951–52, and without reintroduction of the initial allowance, over and above the estimated yield in a full year from the rates now proposed by him.

It is estimated very approximately that the additional yield which would accrue from altering Income Tax and Profits Tax to their 1951–52 rates and withdrawing initial and investment allowances would be £220 million. This figure relates only to tax falling directly on the profits of companies and public corporations.

Will the right hon. Gentleman then agree that he has remitted tax on the profits of companies amounting at least to over £200 million in the last four years?

That is what I said, and I am very proud of it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the present value of United Kingdom investments in the United States of America and in Canada, respectively; and how this level of investment compares with that obtaining at the end of December, 1951.

We have no means of assessing the market value of foreign investments; but the Bank of England estimate that at the end of 1953, the latest year for which figures are available, the nominal capital value of the United Kingdom's holdings of known stock exchange securities in the United States amounted to £172 million and in Canada to £156 million. The holdings at the end of 1951 were £131 million and £157 million, respectively. Much of our new investment in both these countries is not effected through the purchase of securities, and is not reflected in these figures.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether these figures or any part of them are included in our gold and dollar reserves, as published monthly?

I should want notice of that question. I will then give my hon. Friend an answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the Government policy of a slowing-down of investment programmes applies to new town development corporations.

Development of the new towns is to continue in step with the movement or expansion of industry in and around each of the towns.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the slowing down of the development in the new town of Glenrothes has nothing to do with the policy as announced in his Budget speech, and can he further say whether it was a pure coincidence that just five days after his Budget speech the Minister of State told the Fife County Council that house-building in Glenrothes would have to cease forthwith?

I realise the importance which the hon. Gentleman attaches to this matter, being so closely associated with the district, and, with his permission, I should like to look into those facts and send him a reply.

When he is doing this, would the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that there has been great disturbance of mind caused amongst the miners whom we are trying to transfer to the new towns by the apprehension that these new towns might not develop as was anticipated? Also, would the right hon. Gentleman look into the question of whether there cannot be a re-creation of advance factories, because it seems that is the only way in which new industries can be attracted to these new towns?

I am not clear that the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman are well-founded, but I will certainly give him an assurance that we will look into them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what slackening there has been in the rate of initiation of industrial and commercial building projects since 26th October.

It is too soon yet to say with any certainty what the trend is.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree, therefore, that the system of building licences, at any rate for the larger projects, would enable him not merely to select but also to see where he is going?

What I am aware of is that industrial and commercial building has increased, as the House as a whole wished. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact details because we collect information about new starts in arrear, but I will give him statistics directly I have them.

Without entering into the exchange which we had during the Budget debate on the question of unessential building, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is not aware that while some of these projects are of great national importance, others of them are a completely unjustified call on our present building resources? Also, would he not agree that some current commercial building operations are far less important than some of the public building which he is cutting out by his financial policy?

It is easy to make these generalisations without supporting them with specific instances. If the right hon. Gentleman likes to put particular cases before me, I will look at them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps he proposes to take to see that an example in economy in administrative spending is set by the Government themselves.

I am confident that Government Departments in general—and I know that the Treasury in particular—are seized of the imperative need to which the hon. Member draws attention.

May I draw the attention of the Chancellor to the fact that while no doubt large economies in administration are not possible, any economies would have a salutary effect on the public, if the right hon. Gentleman wants the public really to believe that there is an urgent need for economy throughout the country?

Yes, I am aware that in fact the hon. Member is supporting what I want to do.

Will the Chancellor take into consideration the possibility of ceasing to sell any more lorries at a loss and so saving money in that way? Also, will he consider cutting out the transport levy, which is an unnecessary burden on industry?

It is surprising how the Government think of all these things.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will increase the Treasury grant to the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

The grant to the British Schol of Archaeology in Jerusalem is made not by the Treasury but by the British Academy, whose grant for 1956–57 is at present under consideration.

Is it not true that my right hon. Friend has the final say in what the grants should be? Is it not regrettable that the British School, which has done such outstanding work on the Jericho excavations and the Dead Sea Scrolls, should be the only school in Jerusalem to be closed down for nine months of the year through shortage of funds?

I will take account of what my hon. Friend has said. It is not I who have the last word; the House has the last word. The House is invited each year to vote a block grant to the British Academy, which then distributes the grant at its discretion.

Bearing in mind that these grants come from a single source, would it not be better, instead of a financial grant, to restore the Caryatid in the British Museum in the Erectheum on the Acropolis, thus restoring its original perfection?

That goes some way beyond the scope of the Question.