asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason potato mashers are subject to Purchase Tax, whatever their dimensions, whereas egg whisks are only subject to tax if less than 12 inches long; what was the revenue received from Purchase Tax on potato mashers and egg whisks, respectively, during the last 12 months for which figures are available; and whether he will review at any early date the liability, or otherwise, to tax of all wire utensils used in the kitchen.

The tax applies to articles of a domestic kind, and egg whisks over 12 inches long are not, according to my information, commonly used in the domestic kitchen. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorney-croft) on 17th December. With regard to the third part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth on 19th November.

Will my hon. and learned Friend tell the House why an egg whisk used by the housewife is singled out for this vicious and discriminatory treatment, whereas an article almost identical, used by a variety of trades, is free of tax? Is this not an invidious distinction which ought to be remedied forthwith?

No, Sir; the egg whisks used by housewives are not subject to tax. Those are the ones under 12 inches long. There is no invidious distinction here, and I do not think that there is any danger of my hon Friend getting his potato mashers mixed up with his whiskers.

That was a very poor pun.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he anticipates it will be possible to reduce the Purchase Tax on neck ties, cravats, sashes, and muffs from 30 per cent. to 5 per cent., which is the present rate charged on handkerchiefs, scarves, shawls, and braces.

I cannot anticipate the possibility or the date of future changes in taxation.

Yes, but as, for example, a silk necktie is an article of clothing and is made out of precisely the same material as a silk handkerchief, what are the processes of reasoning which have led the Treasury to suppose that it is a good idea to put a 30 per cent. Purchase Tax on a silk necktie and only a 5 per cent. Purchase Tax on a silk handkerchief?

That is another question which I would ask my hon. Friend to put down, unless he has already exhausted his quota.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why mechanical devices specifically designed for cutting long grass and weeds, and in no way suitable for use as lawn-mowers, have recently been selected as liable for Purchase Tax as lawn-mowers under Group 16; and whether he will arrange for this decision to be rescinded forthwith.

As my hon. Friend is aware, this matter has been reviewed, and the particular machine to which he refers will not, in future, be regarded as taxable.

That is a great victory for me for once. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, after a long battle against the Treasury, the Purchase Tax on these machines has now been removed, although a large number of customers who bought this machine have already paid the Purchase Tax? Would my hon. and learned Friend now be scrupulously fair and authorise the manufacturers who have collected the Purchase Tax to repay to each of the owners of the machines the Purchase Tax which they have been illicitly, at his behest, charged?

This is an example of the way the Customs is always willing to review the interpretation, in conjunction with the trade interests concerned. As for any tax which has been paid already on this article, the Customs will, of course, consider any claim for repayment.

Can the Financial Secretary explain why the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is suddenly opposing all these arrangements when he has regularly voted for them for years on end?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, including the increase announced on 18th February, the National Insurance contribution represents approximately 7 per cent. of the weekly wage of a farmworker; and if he will revise his proposals so that no employed person shall be required to pay in contributions a sum greater than 5 per cent. of his weekly wage.

The National Insurance and National Health Service contribution will be raised under the Government's proposals from 6·3 per cent, to 6·6 per cent. of the minimum wage of a farm worker. It could not be reduced to 5 per cent. without cutting down the provision for larger benefits and contributions which the House passed last November.

Is the Minister aware that this penal tax on rural workers must eventually affect food prices and have a totally disproportionate effect on the country's economy? If the Government reject the principle of the contribution as a percentage of wages, what does he propose to do for the lower-paid workers who are very seriously affected?

The increased contributions represent a rather smaller proportion of the average earnings of male agricultural workers than the 1946 Act contributions did in 1946, but, as the Prime Minister indicated, we are at present reviewing the financial basis of the National Insurance Scheme.

In view of the financial basis of the scheme, will the Financial Secretary take one thing into account which marks a significant difference between 1946 and now, and that is to what extent those in the higher income groups derive benefit from reliefs on part of their contribution which is not open to those who do not earn enough to pay Income Tax?

The Government will, of course, take all factors into consideration, but the tax is less regressive now than it was under the scheme introduced by the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the percentage of total income deducted in Income Tax and National Insurance contribution, together, on the basis of present tax rates and 9s. 11d. a week contribution for the employed man, in the case of a man with wife and one child, and income all earned of £8, £10, £12, £15, £20, and £30 a week, respectively.

Assuming the child is not over 11, the respective percentages are 6·2, 6·1, 8·1, 10·8, 15·5 and 21·3.

Does the Financial Secretary think that that is a satisfactory rate of progressive taxation?

It seems to me to be very highly and sharply progressive on all incomes over £10 a week.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people paying insurance contributions to the National Insurance Fund pay no Income Tax; and how many people contributing to the National Insurance Fund are receiving tax allowances in respect of their contributions.

I regret that precise figures are not available, but it is estimated that between one-fifth and one-sixth of insured persons pay no tax; the remainder receive tax allowances on their contributions.

Will my hon. and learned Friend kindly explain to the House why a Conservative Government maintains a Socialist policy of penalising those who are living in the lower income groups?

I cannot accept the implitions of the second part of my hon. Friend's question. We have done a great deal to relieve those who are in the lower Income Tax paying groups, and, as I have pointed out previously, we have also so altered the tax incidence of part of the National Insurance contributions—the whole of the National Health Service contributions—that they no longer rank as deductible expenses against tax.

A good beginning has been made. and I hope that it will go further.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the loss of tax revenue in the current year due to falling cinema attendances.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on 19th December, 1957.

Will the Financial Secretary now agree that it is clear, if the present rate of tax is maintained, that there will be diminishing returns and that this illustrates the serious situation in the cinema trade? Has he made his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully aware of that?

I received a deputation yesterday from the industry, and I have passed on the representations that they made to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the position in the film industry as a result of the sharp decline in cinema attendances, he will undertake personally to meet representatives of the industry before making any decision about changes in entertainments tax in his forthcoming Budget.

I have really already answered this Question. On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, I had the pleasure of receiving yesterday a deputation from the industry, and have given to my right hon. Friend a full account of their representations.

In thanking the Financial Secretary for that reply and for what he has done, may I ask whether the Chancellor will reconsider his decision not to receive this deputation, in view of the very serious decline in the cinema trade and the possibly grave repurcussions on film production which will result from it? Will not the Chancellor dive personal attention to the representatives of the all-industry tax committee, which is very perturbed about it?

My right hon. Friend has, of course, given personal attention to this problem, and will continue to do so. If I may say so, I think that the deputation yesterday understood very well the pressure on my right hon. Friend's time at present.

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this Question requires very urgent consideration and that a victory for cinemas would be acclaimed on all sides?

I rather think that the implications of that question are meant to anticipate the Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the figure of total capital investment in industry for the last year for which figures are available; and what percentage of this was financed by net retained profits, by depreciation allowances, and by new capital issues, respectively.

I assume that by "industry" my hon. Friend intends to cover all companies and unincorporated businesses but not the nationalised industries nor the trading activities of local authorities and the Central Government. On that basis gross fixed capital formation in 1956 amounted to about £1,450 million, of which about 58 per cent. was covered by the statutory depreciation allowances given for tax purposes, including initial and investment allowances. It is not possible to give the sources from which the balance was met, as undistributed profits and the proceeds of new capital issues are used not only to finance fixed capital formation but also to finance changes in stocks and in other working capital.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for those figures, may I ask him to reflect on this? Fifty-eight per cent. is a significantly low figure. Successive Governments since the war have been urging industry to finance investment by ploughing back profits, which in turn means artificially high profit margins. When he and his right hon. Friend consider depreciation allowances in the forthcoming Budget, will they reflect that if they can increase that 58 per cent. a great deal it will make a real contribution towards stabilising prices by allowing industry to reduce profit margins?

That is a very important point. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it cannot be dealt with adequately by question and answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated amount of hot foreign money in the recent increase in our dollar and gold reserves which is likely to be repatriated when the Bank Rate is reduced.

It is impossible to produce estimates on such a basis.

Does my right hon. Friend fear that a substantial reduction in the Bank Rate will cause a substantial outflow of this hot money?

I do not think I should speculate about future movements in the Bank Rate, but, as I said the other day in reply to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), I see no reason to think that there is any strong movement of short-term funds into this country solely to take advantage of the interest rate differentials. The best expert advice I can obtain is that the movement of money represents the flow-back into London of normal commercial deposits.

How can the Paymaster-General reconcile the reply he gave to me, namely, that he sees no reason to believe that there is any build-up for this money, with the reply he has given to his hon. Friend, in which he says that it is impossible to estimate how much of this money is short-term speculation?

It is quite simple. The hon. Gentleman was asking what had happened and my hon. Friend is asking what might happen.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider converting post-war credits into a new category of Premium Bonds at the same or lower rate of interest whilst retaining the present restriction on repayment and negotiability.

No, Sir.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that "hope deferred maketh The heart sick"? It might go a long way towards curing this condition if those creditors of the Government who hold post-war credits might look forward to an occasional prize.

The objection to that was stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 28th January. Premium Bond prizes are the equivalent of interest. If more money is available, the best way to use it is to accelerate repayment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for the Report of the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes to be produced in an abbreviated and simplified form so that it will be more widely read by the general public.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the evidence submitted to the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes.

The Council is responsible for publishing such material as it thinks appropriate. My right hon. Friend will, however, convey to the Council the suggestions made in both Questions.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the findings of the very distinguished and impartial members of the Council have added great weight to the evidence already provided by the improvement in the rate of sterling exchange and the rise in our reserves of gold and dollars that the financial policy of Her Majesty's Government is eminently sound? Would not he wish to take every possible step to make those things widely known?

I am not dissenting from anything my hon. Friend says, but I think this goes a little beyond the scope of his original Question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that most economists who submitted evidence at this Committee did so at the invitation of the Committee and not on their own initiative? As it is clear that the Committee took no notice of the advice of the overwhelming majority of them, is not the least the Committee can do to publish all that they say?

I do not think I can accept the assumption on which that supplementary question is based.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will now broaden the Cohen Council by adding a trade unionist and an economist of known progressive views;

I will, with permission, deal with both Questions together, though I find it difficult to reconcile them with one another. The Government have no proposals to make either for winding up the Council or for making changes in its membership.

Have we not established a constitutional tradition that committees like this shall represent both sides in the controversial matters affecting the community and both views about such things as the degree of laissez faire and the use of subsidies and as these eminent gentlemen frankly admit their one-sided standpoint in this basic field—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—certainly; they admit their one-sided standpoint on these issues which divide the community—is it right that they should go on unconstitutionally promulgating their own views?

I am afraid I cannot accept the imputation in that supplementary question. Of course they should go on promulgating their own views. It would be foolish if they promulgated anybody else's views. The hon. Member should not assume that failure to agree with him is evidence of partiality.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman note that the suggestion in my hon. Friend's second Question is much more sensible than that in his first?

I am not quite sure what the basis of comparison is, but I have given the Government's answer to both questions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country as a whole is far more likely to pay attention to the views of men who have practical experience of affairs than to people who merely tell others how to do things?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far Her Majesty's Government accept the conclusion of the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes that it would not be alarming if unemployment were to rise above the existing level.

A high and stable level of employment continues to be a main objective of Government policy, and it is our belief that the present restrictive measures which are necessary for the strength of sterling and stability in the price level do not conflict with this objective.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the Question? The Report indicates that the Council would not regard it as alarming if unemployment were at a higher level. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would be very alarming for the people concerned to become unemployed, and for their families? Would it be alarming to the Government?

The Report is not to the Government alone but to the country as a whole. The Government do not consider it their function to comment on the Report as a whole, and even less upon individual sentences.

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the perfectly fair question put by my hon. Friend? Do the Government agree, or do they not agree, with this specific statement by the Council?

I have already answered that the Government do not intend to comment either on the Report in general or, even less, on individual sentences taken from their context.

In view of the fact that the Government now disclaim responsibility for this body, what is the use of continuing it in being?

The use is that an impartial report is received from three very distinguished men on matters of great importance to the whole country.

In view of the reaction of the Trades Union Congress to this Report, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it can be in any way accepted as impartial or as of any use?

I see no reason for thinking the three gentlemen concerned to be otherwise than impartial.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Leader of the Opposition is apparently prepared to accept at least 3 per cent. unemployment?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Government intend to take following the first Report of the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes; and whether he will state the Government's policy in regard to the continued existence of this Council.

The Council was established to report independently and from time to time to the community at large. No immediate action by the Government is called for on the recent Report, but they will naturally bear in mind the observations of the Council. There is no change in the Government's policy in regard to the Council.

Is it not clear that the only thing of value to come out of the Report is the assurance that we now have that Conservative freedom works only under a degree of unemployment, a stagnant economy, a high Bank Rate, and the fact that increased wages cannot be tied even to increased productivity? In these circumstances, with this Committee producing such a biased Report, which does not hold the support of both sides of industry, is it not a waste of public money to allow the Committee to continue in operation in its present form?

If that is the hon. Member's impression of the Report, he cannot have read it with a clear and unbiased mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to prevent the deduction from taxable income of expenditure for political purposes.

I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

In view of that answer, can steel advertisements dealing with the merits of different economic and political systems possibly be considered as expenditure wholly for the purpose of the taxpayer's trade? Since one-third of recent steel advertisements reporting the chairmen's speeches have dealt with such matters, are they not clearly taxable?

That is a matter of interpretation of the law with which I do not think it would be proper for me to deal.

If a trade union used its industrial fund to advertise its political opinions, what would be the Government's view?

That is equally a question of interpretation of the law, and equally I do not intend to be drawn into it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance, in view of rent increases to many people living on fixed incomes who do not qualify for supplementary grants on National Assistance, that he will undertake to restore the Income Tax relief in the bands of income which operated in 1955–56.

I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that everybody is trying to find a way to help those on fixed incomes? Will he convey to his right hon. Friend that this would be a way of helping the small fixed income groups? Will he also bear in mind that I am delighted that he cannot anticipate the Budget statement provided that I get my way in the Budget?

I noted both parts of my hon. Friend's observations.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the proposed increase in expenditure in university education, he is satisfied that the grant in aid of the Arts Council is sufficient to ensure that graduates desirous of seeking employment in the field of arts will find a reasonable guarantee of employment.

The purpose of the grant is to encourage the arts and to make them accessible to the public.

What purpose is there in finding considerable sums of money through the Ministry of Education to give young people a chance to acquire an educated knowledge of the arts when, having obtained it, they find that there is not sufficient money in the kitty to ensure that they can get jobs in the arts in which Government grants have already been expended on them? Is not that a nonsensical way to go on?

The recent increases in university building which my right hon. Friend announced were between two-thirds and three-quarters for the benefit of the sciences and only the remaining part for the arts, and a very small proportion of the latter relates to the fine arts. The Government have decided to propose a grant of £1,100,000 for the Arts Council for 1958–59, which compares with £985,000 for 1957–58. That is an increase of 11 per cent. I think the House will agree that, in view of the over-riding need for economy in Government expenditure, my right hon. Friend has been generous with this body.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the large number of Purchase Tax anomalies in jewellery; why ladies' brooches are rated differently from tie pins; and whether he will examine such anomalies.

As the House knows, my right hon. Friend is examining alleged anomalies in Purchase Tax, and he will bear the hon. Member's points in mind.

While thanking the Minister for that answer, may I point out that there are very many anomalies in this matter? I should be glad if the Minister looked at such examples as two identical brooches, one free of tax and the other carrying 60 per cent. tax, the only difference being that there is a safety cap on one and not on the other.

I will certainly examine that case.

And deal with it?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Purchase Tax officers are engaged in connection with the jewellery industry; and how many complaints have been made to them concerning the alleged black market activities and evasion of Purchase Tax in that industry.

Customs and Excise officers deal with Purchase Tax work in relation to jewellery along with other duties, and the information sought could only be obtained with disproportionate effort and expense.

Has not the Chancellor of the Exchequer accused the whole of The jewellery industry of a conspiracy of silence, in spite of the fact that hundreds of complaints have been made to Purchase Tax officers? Is it not reasonable that something more expeditious should be done to meet these very large number of complaints which must have been made to Purchase Tax officers from time to time?

What my right hon. Friend said was that it was no use making general complaints but that what was needed is specific complaints which can be investigated.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to report on the case of the copying of a design by Messrs. Hill and Company, fashion jewellery manufacturers, in Birmingham.

As my right hon. Friend promised on 28th January, he has written to the hon. Member.

He has, but is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is quite unsatisfactory and that this firm, which has been making complaints now over many months, has made another complaint about the copying of a design of an article which is now being sold by another firm in Birmingham at a price which obviously has evaded tax? Is it not reasonable that some speedy action should be taken in these matters?

Investigations into the allegations relating to Birmingham showed that tax had been paid. As to the copying of the design, I would ask the hon. Member to put a Question to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the impact of the current United States recession on the British economy and on the sterling area.

No, Sir. The question will be covered in White Papers to be laid before Parliament in the next few weeks and in the Budget debates.

I do not want to start a debate, but could the right hon. Gentleman say anything helpful at the moment about the effect of the American recession, particularly on British exports? Could he say whether the slack in British exports at the moment in any degree results from the American recession, and could he say something about progress in exports in the rest of the sterling area?

This extremely important question is so big and complicated that it would be unwise to try to deal with it in answer to supplementary questions. I am afraid that partial information, which is all I could give in answer to supplementary questions, would be misleading. I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me in the circumstances.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost of the housekeeper allowance for the financial year 1957–58.

About £3 million.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, although according to the terms of issue interest on tax reserve certificates is exempt from Income Tax, Profits Tax and Excess Profits Tax, nevertheless such interest is grossed up for the purpose of assessing Surtax and distributed profits tax; and if he will either amend the existing terms of issue or ensure that such interest is not chargeable to tax.

No, Sir. Interest on tax reserve certificates is exempt from both Surtax and Profits Tax.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the proposed merging of the Sadlers Wells and the Carl Rosa Opera Companies which will curtail their activities; and whether he will take immediate action to make the necessary financial aid available by direct grant to ensure the continuance of both opera companies.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes", and to the second "No". These are matters for the Arts Council and, following the policy of successive Governments, my right hon. Friend does not propose to intervene.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware from various letters and articles which have appeared in the Press lately of the great concern in the country over the proposed merger of these two companies and the gross curtailing of their joint and several activities? Is he aware that this disaster could be averted for what by comparison is the paltry sum of £35,000? Could not the Government take this step as an immediate measure of alleviation, while setting up a committee to inquire into the general position of the arts in this country and how far they should be financed from public funds and what the future policy of successive Governments should be?

I have indeed followed the controversy in the public Press, where a number of conflicting views have been put forward. As to the grant to the Arts Council, as I said in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), my right hon. Friend has decided to propose a grant of 11 ner cent. more than the previous year—that is a figure of no less than £1,110,000. I think it would he generally accented that that is treating the Arts Council with great generosity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated increase in taxation revenue anticipated from a full year's operation of the Rent Act, 1957.

I regret that there is not yet enough information on which to make an estimate.

Is it possible that, arising from this matter, though landlords will nay more taxation, tenants will have nothing left with which to pay tax?

No, Sir. One would expect that the landlords would certainly have to pay more tax in so far as their rents are raised.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would have to be the standard rate of Income Tax to bring in the same revenue were husbands and wives to be assessed separately, including the personal allowances applicable to single people.

The standard rate would have to be increased by about one-twentieth of a penny, on the assumption that the separate assessment was optional; and applied only to earned income; and that each spouse was entitled only to the personal allowance of a single person.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has noted the improvement in the pottery industry for the year 1957 as compared with 1956; and whether he will give urgent consideration to the crippling effect of 60 per cent. Purchase Tax on ornamental pottery.

I have indeed been pleased to note this improvement, but the hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Is it not true that this partial but very welcome improvement cannot be dissociated from the fact that there was a remission of Purchase Tax from 30 per cent. to 15 per cent.? In view of the fact that the heaviest competition from abroad which this industry faces in Britain is in ornamental pottery, may we not have at some time or other, and as soon as possible, some remission of this tax?

In view of my answer, the safest thing I can do is to refer the hon. Member to a reply which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave to him on 12th November.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to grant blind persons an allowance, for purposes of Income Tax, for the upkeep of a guide dog.

I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for his hopeful statement, may I ask whether he will ask his right hon. Friend to give sympathetic consideration to a concession which should not cost very much?

I hope that all my replies are read in a strictly neutral tone.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations have led recently to a reduction in the lending rates to local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

The interest rates on loans to local authorities from the Local Loans Fund were reduced as from 25th February in accordance with the established policy of keeping them in line with the rates prevailing in the market for loans to local authorities. The change is in no sense a sign of any relaxation in credit policy.

Has not the time come for a cut in the Bank Rate?

As soon as the time comes, action will be taken.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish monthly figures for sterling balances.

Monthly changes can be much influenced by fortuitous factors and could therefore be very misleading. Consideration is however being given to the quarterly publication of sterling holdings.

But are not the monthly gold figures equally liable to influence by special factors? Will not the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the figures asked for are known to the Bank of England? Will he not also agree that if we are to see the true position from month to month, we ought to see not only the movement in our assets as represented by the gold reserves, but also the movement in our liabilities as represented by these figures?

This is an important point, but even if we published the sterling balances and the gold reserves, that would not be the full picture of our assets and liabilities. If we give the impression that the picture is full, it might be misleading. I agree that the monthly publication of gold reserves might give a misleading impression because of the short-term factor, but that is established practice. I appreciate the point which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will restore the lower rates of Income Tax to what they were in 1955–56.

The lower rates of Income Tax at present in force are the same as those for 1955–56.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that the old rate on the first £100 was 2s. 6d., on the next £150 it was 5s., and on the next £150 it was 7s., whereas now on the first £60 it is 2s. 3d., on the next £150 it is 4s. 9d., and on the next £150 it is 6s. 9d.? Is he therefore aware that under the present rates a single person or a widow with a taxable income of £250 is paying £5 17s. 6d. a year more than was required before, and does not that make many small taxpayers think they were swindled by what was held out to be a cut in the tax rates in the 1955–56 Budget?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The figures he has just quoted were in force in 1954–55, not 1955–56, and they were reduced in that year.

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

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what improvement he has recently noted in the quality of the new chiller grade of beef imported under the long-term agreement between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Australia; and if he will make a statement.

The special bounty for chiller grade beef only came into operation in Australia in mid-January, and its effects cannot be expected to become apparent for some time to come.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the costings investigations into the price of fish which began in 1952, if he can yet make a statement on the conclusions reached.

The report of the White Fish Authority's inquiry into the costs of distributing white fish was published in March, 1957. The information it provided will, I hope, have helped to dispel any idea that exorbitant profits are being made in the distribution of fish.

Are no further investigations taking place into the costings of fish by the White Fish Authority? Is this the completion of five years' study?

I would not say that there are no further investigations taking place or that none will take place. This is a matter for the White Fish Authority to decide on its own initiative, where it thinks necessary.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, as reported in the Fishing News of 28th February, at a meeting between the British Trawlers' Federation and the fish fryers, it was stated that:

"For the 12 months ended September, 1957, prices were higher but costs higher still. … Earnings averaged 73s, a kit and the costs, without allowing for interest, were 75s., so that a loss of 2s. on every kit landed was suffered,"

Can the hon. Gentleman say what inquiries are taking place? Will he not agree that there is plenty of room for improvement in the distribution of fish?

If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that point, I shall be happy to answer it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Committee investigating problems of the meat and livestock industries.

During the past year the work of the Committee has included questions of animal diseases, beef bull progeny testing, carcase assessment, consumer requirements, prepackaging, meat shrinkage, certain feeding techniques and the establishment of a Meat Research Station.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food agreed that the problems which the Committee was to consider affected the housewives very much? Can he say, therefore, if a housewife was put on the Committee? Furthermore, can he also state what has happened about the proposal for smaller joints and leaner meat at more reasonable prices, for which most housewives are waiting?

On the position of the housewife, my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said in reply to a Question put by the hon. Gentleman that the interests of the housewives were represented directly on the Committee by Mrs. Hilda Whitlow, who is a housewife and a journalist.

A Hampstead housewife.

So I am advised. As regards smaller joints, housewives themselves can do a great deal in this respect by choice in the shops, which has exactly the effect—

Smaller cattle.

Smaller cattle are being produced.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the size of the grey seal colony on the Fame Islands doubled between 1939 and 1950 and has increased considerably since; whether he is aware that the salmon fishing industry is, in consequence, suffering heavy and avoidable loss; and if he will authorise a drastic reduction of seal calves during the 1958 breeding season.

I am aware that the size of the grey seal colony has much increased since 1939 and that some of the grey seals are taking salmon and damaging salmon nets. As for the last part of the Question, I would refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 4th March.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that the Government of New Zealand makes scrapie a notifiable disease followed up with a slaughter policy and restriction of movement; and whether, in view of the success of this policy, he will now take similar steps for Great Britain.

Yes, Sir, but the disease never became established in New Zealand, whereas it has been prevalent here for a very long time. Because of this, and for the reasons given in my reply to my hon. Friend on 12th December last, the measures taken in New Zealand would not be practicable in this country.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider the matter? Is it not the case that if we do not take steps to deal with this disease it will become endemic in this country and seriously affect our export trade in sheep to many parts of the world? All we are asking is that, where the disease is obvious, it should be notifiable and that a slaughter policy should follow.

This is a very difficult problem. I know my hon. Friend's concern about it. It has been encountered in this country for a very long time, but the difficulty is the very long incubation period. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend has not felt able as yet to take the steps which my hon. Friend wishes, and I do not see how we could implement such a policy.