asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the present arrangements for distinguishing office furniture from domestic furniture so far as Purchase Tax is concerned; whether, in view of the fact that the low rate of Purchase Tax charged on domestic furniture as opposed to office furniture has resulted in a considerable quantity of domestic furniture being used for office purposes, he will take steps to review this arrangement; and what has been the yield of Purchase Tax on domestic and office furniture for each of the last three years for which figures are available.

My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Having regard to the fact that many items of furniture have a dual application and may be used equally efficaciously both in the home and in the office, is it desirable to keep these two rates in existence? Would not it avoid all the evasion and fiddling that goes on today to replace them by a single, low-level, uniform rate, applicable to furniture as to other manufactured goods?

I always like to agree with my hon. Friend over something, and I agree that in this field there are features common to both. Having said that, I would repeat what I said in answer to my hon. Friend's original Question, that he will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a pottery piggy bank is subject to 30 per cent. Purchase Tax but, if painted with the words "Razor Blades", is subject to 15 per cent. Purchase Tax, the former as a toy and the latter as a salvage receptacle; why this discriminatory fiscal treatment is accorded to piggy banks; and whether he will free piggy banks of tax, as being conducive to small savers on the one hand and to proper salvage of steel from used razor blades on the other hand.

The distinction arises out of the decision of this House that toys should be taxed at a higher rate than domestic hardware. My hon. Friend will not expect me in such a vital matter to anticipate my Budget statement.

Is not it a fact that a piggy bank is a piggy bank, whether it is used in furtherance of small savings or as a receptable for the salvage of razor blades? It is still a piggy bank. Is my right hon. Friend really pleading for a system whereby the end-use of an article shall determine the rate of Purchase Tax applicable to it? In any event, how could either of these articles be classified as a toy?

While I do not underestimate the importance of encouraging small savings, particularly when there is a rural bias, I think my hon. Friend exaggerates the influence of his proposals on National Savings and salvage. If he fills a piggy bank with his safety razor blades he will understand the difficulty of subsequently extracting the blades for salvage without permanent damage to the bank.

While not dissenting from the dialectical statement of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that a piggy bank is a piggy bank, which is agreed on all sides of the House, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that while there have always been anomalies in the Purchase Tax scheme, the fact that we now have seven different rates for Purchase Tax compared with three in 1951 is the result of patchwork attempts to deal with the problem over the past five or six years? Will he take a look at the whole system again?

I agree with the right hon. Member to the extent that quite often when one sets out to remove one anomaly one finds one has created another.

That was a very helpful supplementary question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why boards and pillars used on a wedding, birthday or Christmas cake are free of Purchase Tax, whereas a sugar candle holder mounted on the cake is taxed at 15 per cent., the cake frill at 30 per cent., and artificial flowers at 60 per cent. unless they comprise paper leaves made without wire, when they are tax-free, but with wires for the same cake are taxed at 60 per cent.; and, as the Schedules lay down that when one article is part of another, the tax chargeable is that attributed to the complete article, and a cake is tax-free, whether he will remove all cake ornamentation from Purchase Tax.

I think perhaps my hon. Friend has misread Notice No. 78. The paragraph he has in mind relates to sales by registered persons. Cake makers are not registered and there is nothing anomalous in the fact that different articles used by them have already attracted different rates of tax according to their group classification. In any case, my hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that there is nothing at all wrong with this Question? Is he aware that all the information in the Question has been carefully checked by the appropriate trade association, which is suffering all the vicissitudes of five different rates of tax applicable to a single article such as a wedding cake and the components of it? Amid all the range of absurdities in Purchase Tax, does not my right hon. Friend realise that this last Question I can put to him before his Budget takes the cake?

I want to be quite sure that my hon. Friend understands this matter. When he comes to celebrate his half centenary, if he has a birthday cake, and if all the candles are made of edible sugar, they will not attract Purchase Tax.

What about the frill?

His laurel wreath—if he has one—if it contains any wire, will do so.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum has been received in respect of Purchase Tax on repaired cathode ray tubes from 1st January, 1957, until the latest convenient date.

I regret that it is not possible to furnish this information.

Is the Chancellor aware that about 60,000 cathode ray tubes are repaired annually by about 60 firms? My information is that very few firms are paying tax. Will the Chancellor have a good look into this question, because it affects many old people who are unable to pay either tax or the full replacement value? Will he consider completely withdrawing the Purchase Tax on cathode ray tubes and thereby simplifying the whole problem confronting everybody?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is difficult to draw a line between small repairs and major repairs which amount almost to the provision of a new tube. The activities of the repair firms are very carefully watched to see that no tax liability is avoided.

Just one further Purchase Tax absurdity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reduction in the number of cinema seats in Great Britain as a result of 417 cinemas closing in the two years ended December, 1957; and the average annual amount of entertainments tax paid per seat in the last financial year for which figures are available.

There were about 250 thousand fewer cinema seats in December, 1957, than in December, 1955, and 362 fewer cinemas open. In the financial year 1956–57 the average Entertainments Duty per seat was £8 13s. 0d.

Do not those figures reveal the gravity of the slump that has ocurred in the cinema trade in the last year or two? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintains the present rate of Entertainments Duty, will not it yield him diminishing returns?

I have nothing to add to the Answer I have already given. The hon. Gentleman must not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

While appreciating my right hon. Friend's Answer about his Budget statement, may I ask him, in considering this matter, to take account of the fact that, irrespective of the tax, the cinema is fighting a desperate battle now? Does not he think that this is a very special case?

I will take all relevant factors into consideration.

While not expecting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to anticipate his Budget statement, may I ask him to study what has been said on this matter in past debates when he was not Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to bear in mind particularly the warnings from this side of the House year by year that this state of affairs was inevitable if something were not done?

I will take into consideration all relevant factors and I will look back at recent debates on this subject, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of collecting entertainments tax from cinemas as a percentage of the yield from the tax; and his estimate of the administrative saving which would result from abolishing the tax.

Precise figures are not available, but the cost is of the same order as the average cost for the collection and administration of Customs and Excise duties generally, that is, less than 1 per cent.

If the Chancellor decides between now and Budget day to abolish Entertainments Duty, will he remember that he will not lose all the money, because he might achieve considerable administrative and manpower savings?

The hon. Gentleman has raised a rather hypothetical question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the case of the Ritz Cinema, Yiewsley and West Drayton, which has been saved from closure by public subscription in the expectation of the announcement of entertainments tax reduction on Budget day; and if he will take this case into account in framing his Budget proposals.

I have seen reports of this case, but I cannot anticipate my Budget.

Is the Chancellor aware that this cinema has been saved from closure for the moment by the public-spirited action of citizens in the district, who want to keep open this centre of entertainment? Is he aware that there are many other cinemas in a like position on the margin of closure? Will he ensure that in his Budget statement there is an appropriate response to this public-spirited action?

By alert powers of perception and deduction, I think I can say that I now understand generally the tenor of the hon. Member's views on this matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the figure for United Kingdom dollar payments, on account with the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation countries but not settled through the European Payments Union, for the second half of 1957; and if he will now say whether part of the growth in this item over the past three years is accounted for by giving support to the transferable sterling rate.

The figure will be published in the next balance of payments White Paper in a few days' time. Expenditure in support of the transferable rate is one of its components, but as I informed the hon. Member on 4th February the main cause of its increase since 1954 has been the merchanting of United States goods. This, however, has absorbed sterling, which would otherwise probably have cost the United Kingdom gold and dollars through other means.

Is not it now clear that it can be deduced from figures hidden away in these accounts and reluctantly explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are now paying an annual sum of over £200 million more in gold than in 1954, either to allow free commodity markets or to support the rate of transferable sterling? Is not this an almost intolerable burden? If, as must be the case, he knows it, ought not the Chancellor to give us the figure for the last half of 1957—which may show that it is costing still more—in order that we may see what is the up-to-date position?

We have to judge our net advantage very broadly in these matters, but I would ask the hon. Member to study the balance of payments White Paper when it comes out. No doubt we shall have an opportunity of debating these matters.

When the Chancellor studies past copies of HANSARD, will he note that on 24th February, 1955, when the present Lord Privy Seal announced that this would be the method of supporting transferable sterling, we warned him that it would lead to very serious loss of gold and dollar reserves? Will the right hon. Gentleman frankly state to the House how much of the speculative drain on sterling last autumn was due to this factor? Will he tell us when he can expect the balance of payments White Paper and the Economic Survey?

I think the right hon. Member will agree that it has been an invariable practice never to give particular figures relating to exchange management. I would not agree with his general conclusion on this matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that in hire-purchase trading the total loans increased by £80 million to £484 million in 1957, and that the high rates charged on these loans tend to increase the cost of living, what new steps he proposes to take to make his credit-restriction policy in this field more effective.

I am considering the whole question of the provision of finance for hire purchase, but can make no statement at present.

Did my right hon. Friend see in the City article of the Daily Telegraph this morning the statement that:

"Once again a hire-purchase finance company has stolen a march on the Treasury"?

I have not seen the article or letter in question, but I shall make a point of reading it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many local authorities are taking powers to invest their pension funds, in part or wholly, in ordinary shares; and if he will make a statement on Government policy as regards investment by public bodies in the light of the tendency adduced by this figure.

Three local authorities have already taken powers to invest their pension funds partly in ordinary shares; I have notice of some nine others which intend to seek them. It is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to object to a reasonable extension of the powers of investment of pension funds where there are adequate safeguards.

Is not this evidence that local authorities do not think that my right hon. Friend will be able to conquer inflation, or they would not be wanting to buy ordinary shares? Are there further steps he can take to put confidence into local authorities to stop this development?

If local authorities have any doubt on that matter. I think they will be much encouraged by the progress made in recent months.

Is not this the clearest evidence that could possibly be advanced that trustees are now becoming seized of the idea that if they are to carry out the duties of their trusts to the benefit of the people to whom they are responsible they have to gear their activities to inflation and not rely on fixed-interest-bearing securities?

I think it would be unreasonable to refuse local authorities a limited freedom to do what they believe is in their employees' interest.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will authorise the establishment of a Slough district advisory committee to the Southern Regional Board for Industry.

I am awaiting a recommendation from the Southern Regional Board for Industry which has this matter in hand.

While thanking the Chancellor for that Answer, may I ask him to bear in mind that the industries of Reading and Slough are very distinct? In view of the growing importance of Slough has an industrial centre, will he look on this proposal favourably?

I shall certainly take note of what the hon. Member has said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider some means of reducing interest charges on the investment of capital in public projects in overseas territories in view of the loss of contracts to British firms owing to the 7 per cent. Bank Rate.

On a point of order. This Question was tabled before the reduction in the Bank Rate. Of course, the figure should now be 6 per cent.

I do not think that it would be appropriate to introduce any special arrangements of the kind suggested. It is not my policy to influence in a discriminatory manner the normal structure of interest rates.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Prime Minister of Ghana has just stated that it is impossible to give concessions to industries in this country because of the high Bank Rate? Would not it be desirable from the point of view of British industry that there should be some arrangement by which there could be a reduction of interest rates to those countries?

I think the hon. Member knows that our policy has been and still is very much against anything that can be interpreted as an export subsidy.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the aggregate gross annual value and net annual value, respectively, for the purposes of Income Tax, Schedule A, in the United Kingdom for the latest convenient year; and, of these totals, what were the amounts represented by domestic hereditaments occupied by the owner of the property or his family.

Six hundred and eighty million pounds gross annual value and £525 million net annual value in 1956–57, of which about £155 million and £120 million respectively relate to owner-occupied houses.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount by which in the latest convenient year, assessments for Income Tax in the United Kingdom have been reduced as a result of claims for maintenance of domestic hereditaments occupied by the owner of the property or his family and the resultant aggregate reduction in Income Tax liability.

About £15 million representing about £6 million tax in 1957–58.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the relationship between the amount refunded in maintenance claims and the amount collected under Schedule A, and consider whether the collection costs are really worth while?

I will take into account what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the aggregate amounts allowed in the latest convenient year for Income Tax purposes in the United Kingdom in respect of the use for the purposes of trade, profession or avocation of a part of domestic premises occupied by the owner of the property.

I regret that the information is not available.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in the negotiations for a European Free Trade Area.

Much further work in analysing the problems and devising possible solutions has been done. The Inter-Governmental Committee has recently met in Paris and will meet again next week.

As we are constantly reading in the Press that French opposition to the Free Trade Area is likely to wreck the whole plan, is not it time the Government made some statement to the House about what is going on and what the Government mean to do if the scheme collapses?

I think there is some misunderstanding about this. The French have produced some proposals which they have put to their colleagues, the "Six". I understand they will emerge in the form of proposals from the six Governments. There is no proposal from the French Government as such before the Inter-Governmental Committee.

Do the Government propose to make a statement to the House and country soon about this matter?

Certainly. As soon as we think it will help the course of negotiations.

Will not the Paymaster-General at least agree that the French proposals are highly disadvantageous to the United Kingdom?

I have just explained that we have not yet seen the French proposals. They have been put to their colleagues in the "Six", and not to me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the unification of sterling-dollar rates of United States account, transferable and security sterling, in view of the recent close approximation of these rates.

I have nothing to add to the various statements made by my predecessors on this subject.

If the right hon. Gentleman is tempted to define these rates, will he at least recollect the serious harm which was done when the Lord Privy Seal, in 1955, tried to liberalise sterling-dollar exchange?

I am satisfied with the present policies of Her Majesty's Government, which still are and have been in pursuance of the objectives followed by my predecessors.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ask the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes to consider to what extent managerial inefficiency is responsible for high production costs, high service charges, high prices, low earnings for employees and inadequate profits.

It is for the Council to determine the lines of its inquiries and the contents of its reports.

Is the Chancellor aware that the first Report which has come from the Council is based upon a false assumption, that everything is all right with British industry and trade? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, unless the Council pays attention to managerial inefficiency, which is responsible in many firms for high costs and prices and low earnings, it will continue to produce worthless reports?

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's assumption or with his opinion of the Report which was presented.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to invite the Council to proceed with any further work, in view of the fact that its Report is obviously of no value to the community?

The actions of the Council are entirely a matter for decision by the Council.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what official approach he has made to the Government of the United States of America with a view to securing its agreement to use the International Monetary Fund to strengthen international exchange reserves by extended credit in the event of a deepening of the American trade recession.

The use of the International Monetary Fund is the subject of regular discussion in the Fund's Executive Board, which includes full-time executive directors from this country and from the United States. No new agreement with the United States of America or the Fund is necessary to ensure proper use of the Fund's resources.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this might be a very important means whereby a depression might be forestalled? In the event of public opinion in the United States being favourable towards it, will he keep his mind open about it and take action wherever possible?

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I think that the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank have both done extremely useful work during the past ten years. It may well be that there is still more important work for them in the years ahead.

Is not the Chancellor aware that, as long ago as last October, when the Government were still complacent about the matter, we pressed this proposal on the Government, and it was turned down flat? Is he aware that it is not a matter of agreement as to the use of existing reserves but that the reserves of the International Monetary Fund need to be very greatly strengthened and enlarged in order to meet the shortage of liquidity in international trade?

I think that there are no signs, so far, that the resources of the Fund are insufficient; but I quite agree that a position may arise when the activities of both these organisations ought steadily to expand, and I hope that that will, in fact, be the course that we shall see followed in the years ahead.

But will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, during the recent mission to Washington of high officials of his Department, this question was discussed with the American Government?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that we take every possible opportunity of keeping in personal touch with the Administration in the United States on all current problems.

Would not part, at least, of the desired result be achieved by raising the price of gold?

I am afraid that I am not in a position to take unilateral action on that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he is importing gold from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Gold is on open general licence and can be freely imported from any source either by an authorised recipient or for sale on the London market. I see no reason to treat Soviet gold differently from any other gold.

Will the Chancellor tell us whether it is the policy of this Tory Government to import more gold from Moscow in order to stabilise British capitalism? Further, does not he think that he would get more gold from Moscow if he adopted Lord Beaver-brook's very sensible advice and removed all barriers on trade with Russia?

I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is entirely open to him to buy gold from Russia, if he wishes to do so, though I shall not be able to let him have dollars for the purpose and, after having bought the gold, he must not keep it but must hand it over.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in 1953 also this Government were kept afloat on "Red" gold. Will he say whether it is still the practice, on importing Soviet gold into this country, to melt it down and remove the hammer and sickle before it is re-exported to the United States?

I am afraid that I must have notice of that question. I am not sure that I shall be able to discover the information the right hon. Gentleman wants, even if he does give notice of it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the unconflicting needs of reflating markets dependent on primary production and checking inflation in the United Kingdom, he will now instruct the Capital Issues Committee to assist Colonial and Commonwealth Governments and private companies in their use of the London capital market.

No further instruction is necessary. After the Commonwealth Economic Conference in 1953, the Committee was asked to take note of the Government's undertaking to make a special effort to provide additional capital for Commonwealth development by facilitating the financing of schemes in other Commonwealth countries which would contribute to the improvement of the sterling area's balance of payments. This request has not been withdrawn.

Surely, my right hon. Friend will agree that certain Colonial Governments have tried to approach the London capital market recently and have not been allowed by the Capital Issues Committee to do so. Is not this precisely the time when we should be doing things in the Colonies to build up areas when there is recession?

My hon. Friend will know that the demands are very greatly in excess of resources available. The Capital Issues Committee has a very difficult job to do, and I believe that it is doing it extremely well.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the criticism being directed against the Capital Issues Committee, on the grounds that its attitude is dictatorial and its decisions, for which it refuses to give any reasons, capricious; and if he will investigate the methods and machinery of the Committee and make a statement.

I am aware that from time to time there has been criticism of Treasury decisions taken after the Committee has given advice, but this has usually been misconceived. I have full confidence in the Committee and I see no reason to make any special investigation.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the City regards some of the decisions as absolutely amazing? Since they have caused a good deal of dismay, will my right hon. Friend ask the Committee to reconsider whether it could not give reasons for some of its decisions?

The Committee inevitably has to turn down some cases and when one is turned down I know how easy it is to regard the decision as amazing, as my hon. Friend has said. I repeat, however, what I said earlier, that I have complete confidence in the Committee and that I believe it is carrying out its very difficult work extremely well.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now move to advance the date of the Commonwealth Economic Conference.

I do not think my hon. Friend's suggestion would be feasible.

Will not my right hon. Friend agree that, with the continuing recession in the Unied States, the fall in various commodity prices, and the present tendency to have schemes for keeping down production even further, it is necessary that we should do something as soon as possible about those parts of the world which buy 50 per cent. of our goods? Would not it be advisable for the date of this conference to be advanced from September when we are likely to, or possibly may, enter the time when sterling itself comes under pressure?

There is an immense amount of preparatory work to be done, and it is being done. I think that the date chosen, as suggested by the Canadian Government and agreed to by other Commonwealth Governments, is really timely.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what terms American Service men in Great Britain are allowed tax-free petrol.

I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) on 18th March last.

Bearing in mind the fact that we all wish American Service men the best possible conditions while they are serving in our country, will my right hon. Friend say whether they are better off in this respect than our own Service men?

They are no better off than Service men in other N.A.T.O. countries. We are following the principle which is adopted generally by other N.A.T.O. countries.

Can the Chancellor say what steps are being taken to prevent this petrol getting into wrong hands so that, thereby, others avoid tax? What steps is he taking to prevent the creation of a black market in this petrol? Is he aware that when Amendments to Finance Bills have been suggested in the past to establish tax discrimination in favour of public service vehicles, the argument has been advanced that it was not possible because a black market would be created? How is it that a black market will not be created in this case, but that one would be if petrol were made tax-free for public service vehicles?

There is close supervision between American authorities and our own officials. We are watching the situation very closely, and so far we believe that there is unlikely to be serious abuses.

In all seriousness, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again at this matter, which I am sure is causing great concern in all parts of the country? I do not think that the country is satisfied that there should be this tax-free system for petrol. The concession does not apply to Purchase Tax, as we know from a case reported in today's Press. Will he have a look at the whole question again? If the system is to continue, will he, at any rate, explain to the country why it is necessary?

I cannot believe that any hon. Member would wish American Service personnel to be worse off when they are stationed in this country than they would be if they were stationed in other N.A.T.O. countries.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will extend the scheme whereby he allows American Service men to use 8,000,000 gallons of petrol per year tax free, to doctors, midwives and nurses, and to all other persons engaged on essential public service.

I do not accept that the cases are parallel, but the Question raises issues of Budget policy which I cannot anticipate.

While not wanting to stop our American allies from getting this concession, is not it unfair that doctors and others in essential services should be in the position of being taxed, and taxed to a higher degree each time they do more work in the interests of the public, whereas our allies, who are also doing essential work, get away tax-free? The position now is that doctors and midwives are paying a tax to enable our American allies to have this petrol tax-free. Is that fair?

I do not think that there is any connection at all; but, as the Budget is approaching, it would be injudicious of me to answer in detail the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what initiative he decided to remit tax on the 8,000,000 gallons of petrol allowed to American Service men each year; and what is the total estimated loss to revenue in a given year on the remission of tax on this 8,000,000 gallons of petrol.

The initiative for this concession came from the American Service Authorities in this country. The annual cost, on the basis of consumption of 8,000,000 gallons of petrol, will be £1 million.

May I ask the Chancellor, without anticipating his Budget, to say whether he could find £1 million to give to those engaged on essential services in this country to assist them to do their work in the same way as American Service men are being assisted?

That is a question that I could not possibly answer without anticipating my Budget statement.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether British personnel who go to the United States for training in the use of missiles enjoy the same tax-free concessions on petrol?

The tax arrangements on petrol are different in the United States, so the remission would not be exactly similar. In principle, exactly the same concessions are available.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the concern felt by workers in the furniture industry at the short-time working and growing unemployment in this industry due to Purchase Tax, hire-purchase restrictions, the credit squeeze, and the rise in the Bank Rate; and whether he will take the necessary action to remove the cause of this unemployment and short-time working.

The percentage of unemployment in this industry at the middle of February was little, if any, greater than the national average, and the number of short-time workers at the end of January, 1958, was less than in the corresponding periods in 1956 and 1957. These facts do not seem to indicate a need for exceptional measures for this particular industry.

Is the Chancellor aware of the fact that the trade unions in this industry, in both North and East London, have expressed deep concern at the position with which their members are now confronted so far as short-time work and unemployment is concerned? If the trade unions desire to make an approach to him on this matter, will he agree to receive a deputation?

I would ask the hon. Gentleman first to study the Answer that I have given.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to ensure that the North-Western Regional Board for Industry shall be enabled to function, in view of the declared intention of the workers' side to boycott the Council following his appointment of a new chairman who is unacceptable to the workers' side.

The customary procedure was followed in the recent appointment of a new chairman of the North-Western Regional Board for Industry, and I understand that he is personally acceptable to both sides. I attach great importance to the successful functioning of these Boards and very much regret the trouble which has arisen. I hope that discussions which are now taking place with the Trades Union Congress about the procedure to be followed in making future appointments will lead to a solution acceptable to all parties concerned.

Will the Chancellor please understand that the boycott of this joint Board by the workers' side is not inspired by any kind of personal hostility towards the chairman appointed? Is it not rather the result of a feeling that this is a departure from the basic principles of joint consultation laid down by Sir Stafford Cripps when these Boards were set up under his Ministry and a feeling that the whole arrangement is now falling apart? Furthermore, is not it to be deplored that, in a situation where we have rising unemployment and other related industrial problems, confidence in this Board is now being shaken? Will the Chancellor do something to restore confidence?

My difficulty is that I cannot understand why confidence in this Board should be shaken. As far as I am aware, the procedure followed on this occasion was precisely similar, and we now have exactly the same number of trade union chairmen of Regional Boards as we had when Sir Stafford Cripps resuscitated this scheme in 1945.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far recent figures show that the rise in the cost of living is being checked.

The Index of Retail Prices in February was one point above the figure for July, 1957, and it has remained virtually stationary for the last four months.

Can the Chancellor explain why it is that, although import prices have fallen by more than 10 per cent. in the last twelve months, retail prices are still higher than they were twelve months ago?

So far as that is correct, it is due to the fact that we have not yet fully overcome internal inflation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will estimate the financial savings in printing and other costs by simplifying the present lengthy titles of Ministers in official documents, in particular by reducing the printed titles of the appropriate Ministers to Minister of Local Government, Minister of Food, Foreign Secretary, Colonial Secretary, Scottish Secretary, Minister of Transport, Minister of Labour, and Minister of Pensions.

I estimate that the savings would be negligible.

I understand that the Order Paper and printed reports come under your jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, but if you would permit me to use the Order Paper as an example, may I ask the Chancellor whether he realises that I have counted the number of words that would have been saved in last week's Order Paper? The saving would have been in the region of 1·5 per cent. of paper and printing costs in addition to the saving of time, energy and labour spent by hon. Members and Clerks in writing out these fatuously long titles. May I ask the Chancellor whether he will consult with you, Mr. Speaker, and others concerned, to see if an arrangement of the type that I propose can be made?

I have not been able to afford the Civil Service manpower to carry out the detailed investigations that the hon. Member has carried out.

Is the Chancellor aware that hon. Members on both sides, having heard an Answer from a Minister, thank the Minister for the Answer and that that wastes a great deal of time and space?

It is very polite, and Ministers like it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the purpose of freeing the import of £ notes into this country.

This relaxation will reduce controls at the ports, ease one of the problems of visitors to this country, enable Her Majesty's Government to meet a request of the O.E.E.C., and strengthen the position of sterling generally.

Does the Chancellor really think that at a time when our foreign exchange position is still basically so delicate that we cannot afford any expansion at home, despite our healthy balance of payments position, he ought further to relax the exchange controls in any degree?

I repeat what I said earlier in answer to another Question. One must look at the net advantage in these matters rather broadly. I am quite satisfied so far that the step which was taken strengthened sterling and did not weaken it, in the short term at least.

Does my right hon. Friend realise, in confirmation of what he has said, that the present system is infinitely better than what obtained before, when £ notes were not allowed to be brought into this country and were circulating at a discount all over the Continent, which had a bad effect on sterling generally?

I agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the Government's intentions concerning the limits within which the value of the £ sterling will be free to move in terms of the United States dollar and other currencies.

No, Sir. I have nothing to add to previous statements of Government policy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome the implication of that Answer that the Government are still continuing to resist the pressure, which last autumn was very strong, from the Bank of England to widen the rates within which sterling could move?

I know of no change in Government policy in recent months.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement concerning the Government's intentions about legislation to repeal or amend existing statutory powers in the field of exchange control.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what economic controls he is proposing to abandon, in view of the recent announcement of general Government policy in this regard.

The Government's policy is to do away with powers exercised under emergency legislation. This means abolishing those controls exercised under it which are no longer needed and seeking permanent powers to cover those which are. I have no statement to make at present in regard to economic controls.

While we understand the intoxicating effect upon the Lord Privy Seal of his audience a week last Friday, may I ask whether the Chancellor is aware that we shall strongly support him in refusing to get rid of some of the essential exchange control regulations which are vital for the maintenance of sterling at this time?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are in complete accord in regard to Government policy in this matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has reduced the Treasury grant to the British Museum, the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery.

I assume the hon. Member is referring to annual purchase grants. If he will look at the Estimates he will find that there has been no such reduction.

That will take some time. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has cut the grant to the British Museum by £65,000, that to the National Gallery by £12,000, and that to the Tate Gallery by £2,500? Are we so hard up that we must impose these miserly cheese-paring cuts on great national cultural institutions? The Government are behaving like a lot of barbarians and ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The hon. Member has made the mistake of not differentiating between annual grants and grants for specific purposes.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Civil Service National Whitley Council has now con- cluded its consideration of the rates of payment for authorised use of private vehicles on Government business; and with what results.

Not yet, Sir.

Does my right hon. Friend expect this report soon?

I shall not be able to say until the negotiations have reached finality.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the letter sent to him by the Port Wine Trade Association concerning the rates of duty; and what reply he will give.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the memorandum setting out the case for a reduction in the present import duties on port from the Port Wine Trade Association, dated February, 1958; if he is aware of the strong support in the House for the case put forward by the Association; and if he will give an assurance that he is giving sympathetic consideration to this case.

I am, of course, considering the case put to me by the Port Wine Trade Association, but I cannot anticipate my Budget

So that my right hon. Friend may keep this matter at the tip of his tongue, will he give an undertaking that when he discusses it with his advisers, it will be over a glass of good old vintage port?

In spite of the stimulating nature of the subject, I must stand on my reply that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that port is a civilised and civilising drink and that although it is sometimes unfortunately qualified with lemon, it is traditionally a good working-class drink?

I think I can express agreement with every word that the hon. Member says.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the approximate saving per annum to the National Debt charge and to the United Kingdom balance of payments on current account if the Bank Rate were reduced from six to four per cent.

I have nothing to add to the replies given to the right hon. Member Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on 29th October, 1957, and to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) himself on 16th May, 1957.

As the right hon. Gentleman last week made a commendable advance towards lower interest rates, will he pluck up courage and advance still further in the immediate future?

We shall see as time goes on.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Answer given to me on 29th October had nothing whatever to do with this Question? Will he now answer the Question?

I think it certainly had general relevance to the Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for statistical records to be kept of the different types of personal expenses which the Board of Inland Revenue accept as deductible from corporate profits and personal incomes for the purpose of taxation assessments.

No, Sir. I do not consider the value of such records would be worth the cost of compiling them.

Is the Chancellor aware how disappointing his Answer is? Is not it the case that excessive personal expenses are a very large source of lost revenue and fiscal inequality? Would not it, therefore, be desirable to have a careful investigation of the matter?

I am sure that if the hon. Member realised what a gigantic task he is asking to be carried out, he would agree with what I have said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Customs duties on brandy and still light foreign wines compare with the duties applied to them in the post-Budget period of 1920.

The present basic Customs duties on brandy and still light foreign wines are respectively some three and five times those applicable in the post-Budget period of 1920.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these substantial increases are very high indeed? Is he, however, further aware that for heavy wines and port wines, the rates are still 16½ times those of 1920? Can he look at this sympathetically?

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

asked the Prime Minister which Minister is now conducting negotiations regarding the future of Cyprus.

My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is the Minister responsible for the affairs of Cyprus; but because of the international implications of the problem my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is also concerned. They naturally maintain the closest contact with each other and with myself.

The Prime Minister has not answered the Question, which asked what Ministers are now conducting negotiations. In view of the fact that the Greek Government and representative Greek Cypriots have publicly stated within the last few days that no negotiations are taking place with them, and in view of the fact that the Turkish Foreign Minister has just said that the only basis on which he is prepared to negotiate as the final limit of Turkish concession is partition, would not it be better for the Prime Minister to say frankly that after years of delay and mistake the problem has become so difficult that the Government do not intend to solve it?

The hon. Member is making a statement. I answered the Question which he put to me.

asked the Prime Minister to what extent it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to make agreement on the substance of major international problems a precondition to holding a Summit Conference.

Her Majesty's Government have never made it a condition that there should be agreement on matters of substance in discussions prior to summit talks, but only that there should be preparation likely to lead to a good conference at which some agreement might be reached.

Whilst welcoming the Prime Minister's definition of the British Government's position, may I ask whether this is also the position of Britain's allies in the matter? If it is, why on earth cannot the Western Powers accept Russian proposals for a Foreign Ministers' conference and cease this endless diplomatic minuet?

I think the position I have stated is the same as that which was stated by President Eisenhower in his Press conference on 5th March, and I am hopeful that it will be possible to make progress upon this basis.

But would the Prime Minister give us some idea of the circumstances which will determine our decision in this matter as to whether he thinks there is a real prospect of getting somewhere at the Summit Conference? Is there not some danger in our present attitude that either a decision is reached not to have a Summit Conference, because frankly we cannot get anywhere without knowing what is to happen at the Conference; or, alternatively, that hopes may be raised too high at the preliminary discussion if we are told after it that there is a prospect of getting somewhere and then we find there is not?

I appreciate the point put by the right hon. Gentleman and I have tried all the time to keep a balanced position between raising hopes too high or dashing them or being negative upon the whole matter. I hope this approach is the right one to achieve just that purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any preliminary negotiations are proceeding at the present time? Is any diplomatic approach being made towards the Summit Conference?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that a number of communications have been addressed by the Soviet Government to various Governments. I have still to make a further reply to one which was addressed to me. There are, of course, continual discussions between the Western Governments—if I may call them that—as to the best way of handling the matter in order to make progress upon the lines which seem to us best.

I am not speaking about the formal communications, the letters, that have been addressed on both sides to either side. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a report in the Press to the effect that in the United States the Russian Ambassador to Washington has been engaged in conversations with Mr. Dulles, and is that the nature of the preliminary negotiations?

No, Sir. Of course, ambassadors come to see the Foreign Secretaries of all the various countries. I am not at all pessimistic about the outcome of this, and I think that the method by which we are approaching it is the most likely to lead to a result.

Are discussions going on between the Soviet Government and the Western Governments at this moment on the matter?

Not formal discussions. There are, of course, always private communications, and just because they are private perhaps it would be better for me not to discuss them.

Was not it suggested at the very start of these discussions that it would be much easier to hold a conference of Foreign Ministers first, and is not it taking almost as long to fix up a meeting between Foreign Ministers as it would be to summon the Summit Conference itself? When is it proposed to hold the conference between the Foreign Ministers?

There is at present a difference of view as to what is to be the task either of preliminary negotiations through ambassadors or of the Foreign Secretaries. Up to now the Soviet Government appears to wish to confine the preparation merely to choosing the date, the place, the composition and the agenda. We feel that if the agenda is to be selective in the way most calculated to lead to some result, however limited, it is necessary to have some preliminary discussion of the character of the agenda, because that is the only way to find out the subjects which should be discussed at the start.

But is not the real difference between the Soviet Union and the Western Governments this, that whereas the Soviet Union is prepared to discuss the agenda at the preliminary conference, the Western Powers are insisting on what amounts to negotiation on specific points? Would not it be wiser in all the circumstances simply to confine the preliminary discussions to the four points mentioned by the Prime Minister?

No, Sir; because, first, rather strong positions have been taken up to try to rule out altogether certain subjects which seem to me to need further discussion; and, secondly, because I say with great seriousness that if, as I hope, we might make an advance—even a limited advance—it is important so to choose the agenda as to produce that result. Therefore, some discussion, not to reach agreement but to give a general idea as to how the agenda might best be chosen, seems to me to be an important part either of the ambassadors' or the Foreign Ministers' discussions.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will give instructions that no aeroplane carrying nuclear bombs shall be routed over a large centre of population, such as London, while on practice or training flights.