asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the falling receipts of the British Film Production Fund, what action he will take to maintain and increase British film production.

I regret that so far the yield of the levy has fallen below the estimate but it is too early to consider altering the rate.

Is not this a quite serious situation? Whether or not a reduction in the number of cinemas is inevitable or desirable, is it not a fact that the need for expanding film production remains great, both for export as well as for the home market? Therefore, what will the Minister do to see that there is not a comparable falling off in production, as is threatened at the moment?

As the hon. Member knows, British film production is assisted by the quota and by the operations of the National Film Finance Corporation. I agree, however, that this is a difficult situation, but we must wait a little to see what the yield of the levy turns out to be.

If my right hon. Friend agrees that the position of the film industry is indeed serious, will he have a persuasive word with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the Budget?

I have to be careful in answering questions about that.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will reconsider the position of aircraft in relation to the embargo list of exports.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) on 12th December.

In view of the difficulties of the aircraft industry and in view of the changed circumstances in the use of aircraft for military purposes, will the right hon. Gentleman keep this matter under lively review?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of home-grown barley exported since 1st August, 1956, and the average value per ton.

Eighteen thousand five hundred and twenty-two tons of home-produced barley at an average price of £26 per ton were exported between 1st August, 1956, and 31st December, 1957.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in consequence, what is the subsidy that is borne on these exports?

Not without notice.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that Her Majesty's Government possess adequate powers and effective machinery to impose import controls discriminating against the United States of America should a continuation of the present United States recession render this necessary to protect our own economy.

Yes, Sir. Our import licensing powers are comprehensive. We have every confidence that the United States Government will take effective action to deal with a recession.

Has my right hon. Friend made it plain to the American Government that they really cannot expect us to take more from them than the equivalent of what they themselves import or lend or give away; and that if the dollar shortage continues and if the recession continues, we shall really have no option but to restrict our dollar imports to the level of our dollar earnings?

When I was recently in the United States, I made some speeches referring to the need for a liberal trade policy on the part of the United States Government, but I hope that we shall not come to discrimination.

Is the President of the Board of Trade at least giving his mind now to the question of what we should do if, unhappily, this recession gets worse?

I am always thinking about that kind of thing.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why the quota for the import of Havana cigars has been increased.

This was agreed in the recent negotiations about the renewal of the Anglo-Cuban Trade Agreement. The purpose was to encourage our trade with Cuba.

Since for two years running they have "welshed" on the American loan because of the dollar shortage, where do this Government of fumbling and fiddling Neros hope to find more dollars for Havana cigars? Would it not be more patriotic to import more Jamaican cigars, if old-age pensioners and others have become cigar addicts after seven years of alleged Tory prosperity?

I do not think that this very small increase in the quota for Havana cigars will injure the Jamaica trade. Jamaican cigars are cheaper. What we are trying to do is to earn more dollars from Cuba on the other side of the account.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the recent decline in trade on the part of the machine tool industry; and what action he is taking to find new markets for this nationally important industry.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him yesterday. As regards new markets, I am glad to say that in 1957 the machine tool industry achieved record exports, including a particularly gratifying increase in shipments to North America.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman's reply mask the fact that more special purpose machine tools vital for our industry are being imported than we are exporting; and, further, is he aware that a quarter of the machine tool workers in the Coventry area, highly skilled men, are now facing redundancy? Pending nationalisation, will he take action to investigate the paradoxes of the situation?

I am not aware of this situation in the machine tool industry, but I will look into it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many tons of below-cost butter have been dumped in Great Britain in each of the last three years.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member far Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) on 24th January, I do not have this information.

As this matter has been raised in the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture in New Zealand estimates the figure to be 40,000? What effect does the right hon. Gentleman expect that the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, will have on this position?

When the New Zealand mission was here last year, I explained to it the procedure which should be adopted if New Zealand wished to make an application for an anti-dumping duty, and no such application has yet been made.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will review the customs duty on imported sulphate of ammonia.

As I told the hon. Member in reply to a similar Question on 25th July last, if an application is made by users for the removal or alteration of this duty, I will consider it. No application has been received.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unfortunately, the National Farmers' Union has not a fertilisers committee and is not directly interested because farmers receive subsidised fertilisers? What I am concerned about is the expense to the taxpayer. Surely, the fact that no imports are coming in arises because the rate of tariff is too high. Will he look into this again on my representation?

My information is that the United Kingdom manufacturers' home prices are broadly comparable with prices ruling in other countries. There does not appear to be much prospect for importing.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many British Trade Commissioners there are in Gambia; and what is the extent of their staffs and the scope of their work.

United Kingdom trade with Gambia is not on a scale which would justify stationing a Trade Commissioner there. The Trade Commissioner in Accra is responsible for dealing with trade matters arising in Gambia, and the Financial Secretary of the Gambia Government acts as his local representative.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that in Gambia foreign countries, notably certain European countries, are increasing their trade successfully in competition with British trade? Since energetic measures must be taken to promote increased British trade there, will he appoint another Trade Commissioner?

Certainly, we want to get a good share of this trade, but it is a question whether there really is work for a separate office and Trade Commissioner. I will look into the question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the uncertain legal situation which arises from the projected implementation of the Rome (Common Markets) Treaty by six European countries, and, in particular, to the possible effect of Articles 85 and 88 of that Treaty, in rendering null and void numerous current and future commercial contracts between British nationals and nationals of any of the six countries; and whether he will make a statement.

I am aware that there is uncertainty in commercial and legal circles about the effect of these Articles of the Treaty of Rome, and I am making inquiries.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. In view of the very real anxiety about this matter, will he, when his inquiries are complete, give those who are interested an opportunity of discussing the matter with him?

Yes, Sir; I certainly will.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of the British Industries Fair.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statements by the Board of Trade and the Federation of British Industries which were published in the Board of Trade Journal for 20th December. I am sending him a copy.

In view of the fact that this decision will mean the end of the British Industries Fair, the House will regret it, at a time when British industry so urgently needs a national shop window. Since one of the reasons given, in coming to that decision, was a lack of national leadership, when does the right hon. Gentleman propose to give such leadership?

National leadership in this case means a large subsidy, and, in my opinion, when there are 105 out of 109 trade associations against a fair, it is not much good giving this leadership.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to nominate any of his officers to serve on the joint consultative committee dealing with conditions of employment of employees of the Wales and Monmouthshire Industrial Estates Limited.

No, Sir.

How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reach a sensible conclusion about these wage claims if he is not present to hear the arguments?

Apart from the staff representatives, the committee consists of three representatives of the company, two of whom must be directors. All the directors, of course, have been appointed by the Board of Trade. These people will act within the broad limit laid down by the Board of Trade.

That being so, why has the right hon. Gentleman taken the power of decision out of their hands?

I have not taken power out of their hands. I have merely said that there are certain limits within which they can negotiate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what those limits are?

If this were a private company the limiting factor would be the profits; the directors could not raise salaries beyond the profits they earned. In this case, it is the taxpayer's money, and, therefore, we have to set some limit.

Then, since it is the taxpayer's money, why does not the right hon. Gentleman enter into direct negotiations with them, instead of foisting the thing off on to another body and then sheltering behind that, while remaining free to alter its decisions?

No; I have confidence in these gentlemen who have been appointed by the Board of Trade.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has instructed the Wales and Monmouthshire Industrial Estates Limited that they must consult him before reaching a conclusion on pay claims made by the staff.

Because the salaries of the staff of the Wales and Monmouthshire Industrial Estates Ltd. are, in effect, met from Exchequer funds. It is, therefore, my duty to ensure that any increases are in accordance with the Government's policies for controlling inflation.

Why did this same principle not apply several years ago when the joint machinery was set up at the invitation of the President of the Board of Trade, during the lifetime of the last Government?

We have now financial policies which require this kind of action.

Is not the President now giving us the real answer; that this has nothing to do with the negotiating ability of these people, but is political interference by the Government in the settlement of the wages? Does he realise that this Government have the worst reputation of any since 1926 in the handling of industrial relations?

It would be a very bad day when the taxpayer's interests were not taken into consideration.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the absence of particulars of weight from packets of soap powders and other detergents is causing confusion to both retailers and customers; and whether he will take the necessary steps to require that such packets bear particulars of their weight.

A requirement to mark soap powders and detergents cannot be imposed under existing legislation, but my right hon. Friend will bear this in mind when considering future legislation.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that last night I sent his right hon. Friend an example of one packet of soap powder, with an advertised price of 1s. 9d., that weighed 1 lb. 9½ oz., and another packet, with an advertised price of 1s. 10d. but with a special price reduction of 4d., that weighed 1 lb. 2½ oz.? Does not he realise that this confusion is growing, especially with the issue of coupons relating to soap powders, and will he take early action to stop it?

I carefully examined the two packets this morning, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) will be glad to learn that the larger packet, weight for weight, is, in fact, better value for money. I should like to reassure him that we have every sympathy with the need to bring into being an up-to-date law on this subject, but it must await Parliamentary time.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is about time that the Government implemented the policy which they put in the Gracious Speech about two years ago—that something was to be done about the Hodgson Report? This question of soap powders and cleaning powers is becoming nothing more or less than a racket. When the housewife gets the larger packet she thinks she is getting more for the money, when, in fact, she is very often getting less. If the hon. Gentleman wants more samples, I can provide him with them.

We propose to do a good deal by regulation about foodstuffs, but we have no power to do anything about non-foodstuffs. I would remind the hon. Lady that this is, of course, a highly competitive industry, and that helps to keep down retail prices.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made for the tenancy and effective use of the existing factory at Penygroes, Caernarvonshire; and when work will start on the building of the second factory approved for the site.

I am informed that the new tenants of the existing factory are taking over immediately, in order to begin the training of workers for the second factory which is to be built for them. Tenders for the construction of the second factory are returnable by the end of this month, and it is hoped that the building contract will be placed during February.

Might I ask that every possible inducement and assistance be given to the firm that is coming into this district, a district that has the highest average unemployment in the whole of Great Britain? For the same reason, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give special consideration to the possibility of having local firms, particularly contractors, to do the work of building and equipping the new factory he mentions?

I am very glad that these arrangements have at last been made, largely, I understand, as a result of conciliation by the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs. I will look into the point about the local contractors.

In view of the increasing concern in more than one part of Wales about increasing unemployment, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the powers he now has in relation to Government policy are adequate to meet the need for new industries in Carmarthenshire, Caernarvonshire and elsewhere?

We have the powers, but that is not to say that we are always able to get an employer to go there.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage more light industries in Scotland.

I am making every effort to interest companies in setting up new factories in those parts of Scotland which have special unemployment problems.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that his efforts to get these companies to come to Scotland will be helped if missile rocket bases are established there? Is he aware that the Scottish T.U.C. is of the opinion that if these missile bases are established in North and North-East Scotland they will drive employment away? Does he not think it would be better to establish more useful industries that are not yet obsolete?

I should have thought that it would be more likely to bring more money into those parts.

As it is not anticipated that rocket sites are to be established in South-East Scotland, will my right hon. Friend keep in mind the needs of Jedburgh, in Roxburghshire, about which we have had a lot of correspondence and discussion?

Yes.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what Reports he has received from the Monopolies Commission since it was reconstituted under the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.

None, Sir.

In view of that reply, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that, in its latest size, the Monopolies Commission is adequate? Further, as there are many forms of restriction that are not covered by the Restrictive Trade Practices Act—such as the restrictive agreements limiting supply and distribution by certain suppliers to one particular manufacturer—is it intended in the future that there should be any general references to the Monopolies Commission? If so, will the Commission be able to cope with inquiries of that nature?

In reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, I would say that I asked the Chairman of the Commission, and he considers the Commission is adequate. If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer to the second part of his supplementary question, I would ask him to put it down in the form of a Question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will give a considered reply to the Federation of Manufacturers of Contractors' Plant on the licensing position of two-wheeled tractors.

A reply was sent to the Federation last week.

Having examined the evidence that was brought before him, is the President aware that there is a gross wastage of dollars caused by his Department issuing a much-increased number of licences in September, and only in October going to the firm in the new Development Area in Scotland to find out whether or not it could provide these tractors.

I cannot agree with the hon. Lady. I think that it is very necessary to have continuity of delivery of these tractors. As the firm in question was not expected to produce until October, the grant of licences early in September seems to be reasonable. No licences were granted after early September. We have, in fact, had nineteen applications, and all the applicants have been told to go to the firm in which the hon. Lady is interested.

Is it not the case that these licences that were granted have not now been tied to firm orders, as we were told; and that already there have been advertisements to say that these machines from America are in stock, and can be sold?

My information is that the machines were imported before those relating to these forty-six licences.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent actual receipts from entertainments tax on cinemas in the first three quarters of the current financial year were greater or less than his estimates.

It is not the practice to split up into shorter periods Budget estimates given for a complete financial year.

Has not the new Chancellor been informed that there has been a very sharp fall in cinema attendances, which, with the closure of cinemas, must mean a fall in the revenue from this tax? As it will become clear to himself and his advisers very shortly that the yield from this duty shows diminishing returns, will he consider whether or not the rate is much too high?

In reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I would say that I think we must wait and see how the remainder of the year works out. It is not quite as simple a matter as a fall in attendances because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the prices of seats have gone up during the year. As regards the second part, I shall, of course, take this, with all other taxation matters, into consideration between now and the Budget.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the average annual receipts in entertainments tax over the previous five years from the 352 cinemas which have closed since the beginning of the financial year 1956–57.

Mr. Swingler.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may correct the figure in the Question. It should show that 353 cinemas have closed down, because I overlooked the Scala cinema, in Dawlish, in the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I regret that this information is not available.

Is the Chancellor aware, as no doubt he may be, that there are not now any cinemas in his own constituency paying the duty, because they have either closed down or are exempt under the rural scheme? Would he consider spreading this benefit to the rest of the country?

I am not quite sure that the facts as indicated by the hon. Gentleman are correct.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of his estimate of £125 millions as the annual earnings of the City of London depends upon the use of sterling as a world currency.

I regret that it is impossible to assess exactly what proportion of the estimated overseas earnings of £125 million, given in the Economic Secretary's reply of 12th December, 1957, to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), depends upon the use of sterling as a world currency. It is reasonable to say, however, that the international use of sterling has been a major factor in bringing those earnings into existence.

Could not my right hon. Friend list the headings under which the earnings are made up, so that we may form our own judgment as to the indispensability of sterling as a world currency?

I think that would be extremely difficult. What I think is beyond dispute is that sterling plays a vital part in the mechanism of British and world trade.

Can the Chancellor at any rate tell us what proportion of the £125 million is attributable to insurance payments, which, broadly speaking, continued unimpaired throughout the war years under very strict control?

I think that, from the information I have at present, that would be extremely difficult, but I will look into that point.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the conversion of post-war credits into Premium Savings Bonds.

No, Sir.

May I ask the Chancellor if he is aware that there are large numbers of people who, because of accident and injury or perhaps the effect of the Rent Act, are in urgent need of finance, and feel that they are being cheated of it after twelve years? Would not it be possible in cases of hardship to give them some consolation by adopting the proposal in the Question?

I know that this matter has been considered by my predecessors on a number of occasions, and always with the same result—that the separation of certain categories of hardship is too difficult and would result in great anomalies. I am sure myself that if more money is available, the best way to use it is to accelerate the repayment.

Would not my right hon. Friend reconsider the proposal—it has been made before—that these postwar credits should be transferred to a transferable stock, so that those who really need it can obtain the cash without extra indebtedness in the Treasury?

That aspect has also been considered by my predecessors on a number of occasions, with the result that they found that it would not be feasible and would also be inflationary.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of immediately paying out all the remaining post-war credits of those who died on active service in the armed forces of the Crown up to the end of 1957.

I regret that the information on which to base such an estimate is not available.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—may I ask him, when he comes to form his Budget in April, to consider whether it would not be possible to accelerate repayment of post-war credits, to give what surely must be the natural priority to the widows and often the ageing parents of those who died in the service of their country?

I am afraid that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated amount spent annually by the United States forces in the United Kingdom; and what effect he estimates its ending will have on the sterling-dollar exchange rate.

Around £80 million, excluding offshore sales. There is no reason to suppose that this expenditure is ending.

Could my right hon. Friend say what the offshore purchases are? Is it fair to say that if the policy of "Yanks, Go Home" were adopted, the people of this country would suffer materially?

The offshore sales are sales to the United States, which passes on the arms or equipment to European nations. The value of offshore sales is, I think, somewhere about £40 million.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made with the Departments concerned in enlarging both the range and quantities of goods purchased by the Government from Remploy and other official organisations of handicapped workers, and from Her Majesty's Prison Commissioners; and if he will make a statement.

As my predecessor explained in answer to a Question from the hon. Member on 4th June last, Her Majesty's Government are making efforts to enlarge the range and quantity of goods supplied from these sources; this is not an easy task, but discussions are continuing.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor, in answering me in June last, expressed sympathy? Is not January about the time when we should take some action? Will he look at this matter personally, because I am sure that he will find that the Treasury is the only obstacle to a sensible arrangement in this matter for the benefit of disabled people? Will he particularly look into the Treasury Circular of October, 1950, and see whether he can resolve the contradictions in paragraph 4, because, if so, the problem of the disabled will be solved?

I should not like it to be thought that the Treasury is the obstacle here. I will look at the Circular to which the hon. Gentleman has referred me, and communicate with him about it; but I do not want the hon. Gentleman to feel that we are just stopping at sympathy. I think some progress is being made in these difficult matters, and my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary is giving them his personal attention.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that in some districts, Income Tax notices of assessment were sent out as late as 10th December and that by 31st December taxpayers were required not only to give notice of a wish to appeal, but also to state the grounds of appeal, and to suggest an amount to be paid on account; and if, to avoid the injustices which often arise, he will take steps to extend the period of notice of appeal and also arrange for a copy of the assessment to be sent to the taxpayer's adviser.

I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion as to extension of the appeal period. The administrative cost of sending a copy of the notice of assessment to the taxpayer's adviser would, in my view, not be justified. A person giving notice of appeal is not obliged to suggest an amount, to be paid on account.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not dealt with the question of extending the period for appeal, and the fact that the Inland Revenue have six years in which to appeal, as compared with the taxpayers' twenty-one days? Is he aware that the district referred to in the Question is his own, and that one West Country accountant had the business over Christmas of telephoning about fifty farmers and sending out blind a number of appeals, which caused much more work? Will he have a look at the matter again, because there is so much carbon on the assessment forms already that a little bit extra would not matter very much?

I do not think that the suggestion of sending out copies of assessments to advisers would be a good one. Indeed, I am told that it would mean sending out something like a million and a half additional communications. I am considering carefully the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about an extension.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the percentage turn-over of imitation jewellery in this country which, by various means, escapes the full levying of Purchase Tax.

I regret that no such estimate is possible.

Is the Chancellor saying that, although he has large numbers of Purchase Tax officers whose duty it is to investigate the many complaints made by jewellery manufacturers, he has no estimate whatsoever of the large amount involved in manufacturers escaping Purchase Tax?

No, Sir. I am saying that it is extremely difficult to make any such estimate in the absence of concrete and definite complaints, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it would be very helpful to me if anyone who knows that any abuse is taking place will forward concrete, specific and definite evidence, when I will have it investigated.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cause of a great deal of this alleged evasion is the confused state of the Purchase Tax Schedule? Is he aware that, in the case of imitation jewellery, if a manufacturer sends out an article of jewellery in a case, the whole invoice is subject to Purchase Tax, but that if he sends out the article separate from the case, the article of jewellery is taxed and the case not taxed? In such circumstances as these, surely it is the Chancellor's job to clear up this shocking mess.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has a Question a little later on the subject.

On an analogous matter, I agree.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the widespread development of a black market in jewellery in Great Britain; and whether he will institute an inquiry into the matter with a view to taking immediate steps to safeguard the legitimate interests of this industry.

Recent allegations in the Press and elsewhere that there is widespread evasion of Purchase Tax in the jewellery trade are being followed up. So far as they have gone, official inquiries indicate that malpractices are not so extensive as has been suggested.

Has not the Chancellor read the responsible article in The British Jeweller, in which it is admitted, as it is by most manufacturers, that a black market is now taking place on an enormous scale, and that there has been talk about the large-scale corruption of the industry? In these circumstances, will not the Chancellor have an investigation and inquiry and let the House know the facts?

My attention has been directed to the article to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but the answer is the one I have just given—that effective action on my part must turn on my being furnished with specific evidence of abuse.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Messrs. Hill & Company, fashion jewellery manufacturers in Birmingham, are producing a large number of designs at considerable cost which are being copied and sold in various parts of the country at prices which indicate that Purchase Tax has been evaded; and if he will investigate the matter and report to the House.

A complaint by this firm about one of its designs is being investigated, and I will inform the hon. Member, of the result.

While thanking the Chancellor for that better Answer, may I ask him if he is aware that in April last this firm wrote to the Board of Trade calling attention to the fact that a wholesale list of its designs had been copied and pointing out the results of this practice? Will he confer with his colleagues about this matter when investigating it?

The advice I have is that only in the case of this one design have we received specific evidence, and in respect of that we are taking action. Any further specific evidence that is afforded us will again be the ground for an investigation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what agreement has been reached with the Federal German Government about the payment of support costs for British forces in Western Germany.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Paymaster-General to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) yesterday.

But will not the Chancellor be a little more forthcoming? Is there not some personal symbolic significance for him in the figure of £50 million which we are trying to get from the Germans for the upkeep of our troops? Would he not then be in a better position in the dispute over £50 million at home? In view of the fact that German defence expenditure will be only about a quarter of ours in the coming year, will he not be as tough with them as the Prime Minister was with his predecessor and make it clear that unless we get some of these support costs we shall have to review some of our commitments in Germany?

I must ask the hon. Member to accept my view that while this matter is under negotiation by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation it would not be helpful if I said anything more.

Is it not a fact that the difficulties in which the Government find themselves are the consequences of entering into a treaty for the maintenance of troops in Western Germany without at the same time introducing any clause at all guaranteeing a German contribution towards their costs? Did not we remind the Treasury and the Prime Minister of the foolishness of doing so at the time?

I do not think that that would be a fair description of what has happened.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons it has been decided that brushes used for cleaning shoes or teeth shall be free of Purchase Tax, but that brushes used for applying shaving soap or brushing the hair, clothes, or nails, are liable to Purchase Tax at substantial rates; and whether he will give an assurance that this anomaly will be dealt with at an early date by abolishing the tax on all types of brushes.

Shaving brushes and hair, clothes and nail brushes are taxable as toilet requisites. Toothbrushes were similarly taxable until 1951 when they were specifically exempted by this House. Shoe brushes are also exempt for the reasons explained by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government on 8th December, 1955.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is fiscal lunacy to discriminate in matters of personal clean-lines and hygiene? Is it his purpose to encourage cleanliness of the teeth and deprecate cleanliness of the fingernails? Surely those very insanitary habits of his predecessors ought rapidly to be remedied?

In a matter like this it is very easy in abolishing one anomaly to create others.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Purchase Tax was simplified into three rates and that all the changes which have complicated it since 1951 have been supported in the Division Lobby by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro?

Resign.

Is it not a fact that every one of these anomalies springs from the Purchase Tax arrangements made between 1945 and 1951 and that they have not been made worse by Conservative Administrations?

Has not the Chancellor told us that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition removed toothbrushes from Purchase Tax in 1951, and have we not had seven years since that time in which Conservative Chancellors might have followed his example in the matters about which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is concerned?

I will return to the matter later.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a container for shoe-polishing materials, which consists of a case fastened by a stud and containing two shoe brushes, two tins of polish, and two dusters, is at present subjected to Purchase Tax, whereas a shoe-cleaning case, made in the shape of a binocular case in three separate pieces, the ends of which contain a brush and the centre of which contains the dusters and polish tins, is free of tax; and whether he will review this matter, with the object of freeing from Purchase Tax all cases used for containing shoe-cleaning materials.

No, Sir. If my hon. Friend will send me samples or further details I will have the liability of these articles examined.

I cannot very well send my right hon. Friend voluminous packages representative of cleaning equipment, and everything that goes in them. Is he not aware that there have been incessant representations by manufacturers showing these inequalities as between product and product, all of which is impairing the British export trade? Should my right hon. Friend, therefore, defer his investigations into these important matters?

I did not indicate that I was deferring investigation. I said that investigations were proceeding continuously.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that no exact information is available as to what is the proportion of land in Great Britain now owned by the State, and that further land is continually passing out of private ownership into the direct or indirect ownership of the State and, in view of the implications of this transfer of ownership, if he will ascertain the figures so that it may be seen to what extent the nationalisation of the land is taking place by degrees.

Detailed information could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that even since this Question was put on the Order Paper it has been announced that a further 86,000 acres of land are to be retained by the Ministry of Agriculture, instead of being returned to private ownership? Will the Government be on their guard against nationalisation of the land by what the late Sidney Webb would have called "the inevitability of gradualness"?

I think that my hon. Friend is overlooking the fact that there is a steady handing back of land by various Government Departments at present. It is not as if this were only a one-way movement, as he implies. In my capacity as Minister of Agriculture in the last year or two I participated in the handing back of a substantial acreage of land to private owners.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to ensure that in no circumstances can any taxpayer be liable to pay tax at a rate which exceeds 20s. in the pound.

If my hon. Friend will let me know the type of case he has in mind I will gladly look into it.

Would my right hon. Friend have a look at the effect on private companies which has followed the withdrawal of the Chancellor's umbrella and which has resulted in companies being faced with Surtax payment? I believe that there is an injustice here. Will my right hon. Friend look into it?

I shall be looking at all these matters in the course of the general review of taxation which I shall be making in the next few months.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to ensure that executors shall in no circumstances be liable for Estate Duty on funds which in fact they have never received.

My hon. Friend is no doubt referring to differences between the value of property at the date of death and the price at which it is subsequently realised. I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his encouraging Answer, but will he bear in mind particularly the effect of Section 55 of the Finance Act, 1940? Will he consider in a general survey the disastrous and really cruel results which have occurred recently in instances following a death which preceded the increase in the Bank Rate?

I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.