asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of rising unemployment and short time in Blackburn, not only in the textile industry but in engineering, he will reconsider his refusal to include Blackburn in a development area.

I am glad to say that unemployment in Blackburn does not make it necessary to add that city to the list.

Is the President aware that since his predecessor turned down Blackburn's application to be included in the North East Development Area some two or three years ago, unemployment in the town has risen to 5 per cent.; that that is a higher figure than that obtaining in some towns scheduled at that time; that in the town there are 2,500 wholly or temporarily unemployed, and that the figure is rising and that the Blackburn Town Council and the Trades and Labour Council have officially gone on record with this demand? Will he please give this matter serious consideration and not dismiss it in that lighthearted and inaccurate way?

According to my information, at the October count there were 1,500, or under 2·7 per cent., wholly unemployed. It is that percentage that we use when considering whether or not to add an area to the list under the new Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, and the figure on which we operate is 4 per cent.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties which the machine tool industry is experiencing, and to the consequent decline of employment; and what action he is taking in order to arrest this trend.

I am aware that order books for machine tools have declined from a very high level. The Measures adopted by the Government and announced in the debate on the Address should help this industry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, when dismissing the matter so lightly, that compared with last year, orders in hand have fallen by £25 million in value; that employment has gone down by 6,000, and that unemployment has gone up by 1,000? Is he further aware that many of the leading machine tool manufacturers have taken to acting as agents for foreign manufacturers of the most advanced type of transfer machinery, thus further producing unemployment in the industry? Will he take note of that?

I am aware of those facts. In time, investment will pick up, but at the moment both overseas orders and home orders are not as high as they were.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much is received annually by the Registry of Business Names in fees paid for registrations;

(2) what benefits are derived, by the public generally and in Government administration, from the operations of the Registry of Business Names;

(3) what is the annual cost of maintaining the Registry of Business Names.

There are two Registrars of Business Names, one in London and one in Edinburgh. The figures given in this reply cover both offices.

The annual receipts for registration foes averaged £9,200 over the three years ended 30th September, 1958.

The Registrars of Business Names have a statutory duty to register certain particulars which enable the public to identify the owners of businesses which are carried on by persons, firms and companies trading in names other than their own. Some 40,000 inquiries are received each year. The Registrars also have certain duties under the Companies Act, 1947, in regard to the registration of business names which might be misleading.

The net cost of maintaining the Registries in the last financial year was some £27,000.

Was not this Registry instituted in 1914 for the purpose of tracing aliens carrying on business in a different name, and has it not served all its purpose? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that it is now really serving any purpose to the public? Could not the purpose be achieved by enforcing the law that partners should put their names on the top of notepaper and other documents, so disclosing that they are carrying on business in another name, without this Registry?

The fact that there have been 40,000 inquiries a year tends to show that the public appreciate the Registries. I am told that possibly the main purpose for which they make inquiries today is to find the true name of a proprietor whom a creditor may wish to sue for a debt incurred under the business name.

Can the Minister state the approximate percentage of firms trading under the names of the proprietors, which are not protected, and the number of firms trading under names that have been registered, and thus thought to be protected? I am inclined to think that if it does not matter to the first lot, it cannot matter a great deal to the latter lot.

I have not that information, and I think that it might be very difficult to get.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken on the Report of the Monopolies Commission on Imported Timber, published two months ago, which revealed that the trade continues to operate a system of exclusive lists of traders in spite of undertakings given to his predecessor

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade met yesterday the Timber Trade Federation to hear its representations about the Commission's findings. I am considering his report.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is most important, where voluntary agreements and undertakings were given in this difficult branch of the law, that if they are broken or seem to be broken drastic action should follow?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has relinquished to the Registrar the power of deciding the order in which cases before the Restrictive Practices Court are to be taken.

I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the full explanation given in my Written Answer on 23rd October to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance).

Is it not the fact that the order of priority in which these cases are taken really involves making a social, if not a political, judgment, and is it fair on a civil servant to put that sort of burden on him?

I do not think so. The Board of Trade undertook this duty only as a temporary operation until the Registrar had his machinery established. He is now in a better position to assess the best order for bringing these cases forward than the Board of Trade is.

Can the President of the Board of Trade say whether this relinquishing of authority by the Board of Trade limits still further the power of Members to ask Questions of the President of the Board of Trade about this matter?

I hope not. I take a great interest in the operation of this Act.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to state the date when he will be introducing, as an interim measure, regulations under existing legislation pending a new Weights and Measures Bill.

I would refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to Questions on this subject on 6th November.

The Parliamentary Secretary might have referred to 12th June last, when I had just the same Answer. Does the hon. Gentleman not recollect that, as long ago as 21st May last, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was reported as saying that the Government had been waiting for some years for Parliamentary time to bring forward a new Weights and Measures Bill? Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House what it is that has made it quite impossible, over the past seven years, to bring forward a Bill dealing with the interests of the consumer?

I realise the interest which the hon. Lady and hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown in this subject, but the proposed regulations raise very complicated questions. The distribution of food itself is varied and complex, and ill-considered weights and measures requirements might increase the cost of food. The Board of Trade, therefore, wishes to be satisfied that it is fully informed on the matter before making regulations, even if this does involve some delay. I am sure that the hon. Lady, on reconsideration, will agree with that.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that about six months ago the President of the Board of Trade himself gave one of his hints, saying that there would he a Bill of this kind in the present Session, and is not this about the only one of the right hon. Gentleman's indiscretions which has turned out to be unfounded?

Far from it being an indiscretion, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is very disappointed that the Parliamentary time is not available.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what licences he has issued for the import of potatoes.

Under the arrangements announced early this month, 414 open individual licences have been issued. Further licences will be issued to any traders who apply.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much has come in by way of imports as a result of these licences? Will he further say whether it is the policy of the Government to go on granting these licences until the present excessively high cost of potatoes is substantially reduced?

I have not yet got the figures of any imports, but the answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is, "Yes."

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the removal of the import quota on Dutch bulbs would not adversely affect the nation's balance of payments by much more than £1 million per annum even if Dutch purchases from Great Britain did not substantially improve in consequence; and to what extent this point has been taken into consideration in delaying its removal.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate has been made by his Department as to what the effect on the nation's balance of payments would be if the present import quota on bulbs was removed; and whether he will provide some information on that aspect of the matter.

I do not know what the cost would be if Dutch bulbs were removed from control, but it would be substantial as compared with the cost of freeing many other items which are also subject to restrictions. We have taken this factor into account.

Would it not be worth while making this gesture to our good friends and customers the Dutch before Christmas, particularly as so many people are experiencing such difficulty in getting the bulbs they want? Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the biggest bulb wholesalers in the North of England completely ran out of the most popular type of bulb before the end of September, and is it not time that this racket arising from the quota system was ended?

To end the quota system would cost a good deal on our balance of payments, and the gesture for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks would immediately be noticed by other trades. For instance, I should be asked to remove restrictions on apples. I am not sure that my hon. and gallant Friend would like that.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the frequent statements by Her Majesty's Government that the import quota on bulbs cannot be lifted until financial circumstances permit, reflect adversely on the credit of Great Britain overseas and encourage other countries to give similar reasons for refusing to provide better facilities for British exports; and whether, in the circumstances, he will give an assurance that the matter will be disposed of before the end of the present calendar year.

I do not accept the hon. Member's argument that our general trading and financial position suffers because we do not in present circumstances import more bulbs.

While that might be a quite clever answer, surely the work of the Paymaster-General is inhibited by this sort of ridiculous policy. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is little evidence to show that British bulb producers would lose in this matter? In any event, his advice appears to be obstinate and misconceived.

I cannot accept the argument of the hon. Gentleman. There is a good supply of home-grown bulbs and I am fairly certain that damage would be done.

Without going into the arguments for or against the bulb position, has not the right hon. Gentleman addressed a very powerful sermon to the G.A.T.T. Powers, saying that quantitative restrictions should not be applied except when a country is in a balance of payments difficulty? Is he claiming that this country, after all the propaganda we have had from the Government and the right hon. Gentleman's party recently, is in a balance of payments difficulty?

The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that there are hard core waivers in respect of certain goods—

What?

I am using the language of G.A.T.T. A hard core waiver can be obtained in respect of certain goods which are still under quantitative restriction. There are many articles which we still have under quota, and it would not be possible to deal with just one of them in isolation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that he has a waiver for these hard core bulbs or not?

Not yet.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many cinemas have closed in the last six months; and of how many closures in the next six months he has been notified.

One hundred and eighteen cinemas closed during the six months ended 31st October, 1958. We have been informed of five more cinemas that will have closed by 30th April, 1959. In addition, the Rank Organisation has announced the impending closure of some 80 cinemas, but I do not know when this will take place.

Does this not reveal a very serious situation, which seems to spell doom to the independent exhibitor and, perhaps, to the independent film producer? What is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to do to maintain the level of film production, which still remains very important for export purposes, and also to prevent the cinema trade from coming under monopoly control?

The hon. Gentleman has asked me a large number of questions in one supplementary. The main fact is that this industry will not be healthy unless is rationalised in the way now proceeding. We are helping the production of British films, which is keeping up very much better than the number of cinemas.

asked the President of le Board of Trade how many cinemas, closed during 1956 and 1957, have now reopened, following the reduction in cinema entertainments tax in the last Budget.

Six.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the figure he has just given shows clearly that the reduction in cinema tax which was announced in the last Budget has not served the purpose that he said it would? Does he now realise that it would be far wiser to remove the tax altogether?

We always thought that the industry was contracting as a result of competition with television. We could only arrest that trend.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made with his inquiries into the activities of advertisers of breeding chinchillas for sale, with special reference to fur-grading methods and the state of the market.

The advertisements have been examined by my Department and I can see nothing in them which calls for action by me. It is for the trade to settle methods of grading furs and for those wishing to enter this business to assess the state of the market.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that it will give a great deal of disappointment to all those who are aware that the small savings of a great many people in this country are being jeopardised by something which is generally recognised as the backwash of a racket which was exposed in America a few years ago? Further, may I give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment?

asked the President of the Board of Trade why he advised the British Travel and Holidays Association to reject a motion condemning the colour-bar in British hotels.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why he advised the annual meeting of the British Travel and Holidays Association to reject a resolution aimed at discouraging racial discrimination in hotels.

Her Majesty's Government strongly deplore the practice of any form of racial discrimination, but this does not seem to be a matter in which hotels should be disciplined in the manner suggested. An hotel keeper has certain obligations under common law to receive guests, and it is for the courts to decide whether he fulfils them.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why he took what the Daily Telegraph describes as the unusual course of offering advice, which, apparently, has not been sought? Is he aware that the effect of his speech on that occasion was to nullify the much more liberal views he expressed in this House, which, I am glad to say, he has reiterated today, in answer to a supplementary question of mine on 31st July?

I am sorry if that was the effect, but I was asked for my advice and I gave it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will prohibit the import of flick knives, in view of the increase in crimes involving the use of these implements.

As I have explained to the hon. Member in previous answers, flick knives are necessary to certain trades and employment. It is for the Home Office to estimate the danger to public safety of their use for improper purposes.

But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that quite sufficient of these murderous weapons are being manufactured in this country? Is he not aware that youngsters are using these knives in an increasing number of cases and that the courts are very strongly condemning the possibility of their obtaining them without some kind of restriction? Will he not do something about it?

It is really for the police to say whether the suppression of manufacture and import for which the hon. Gentleman asks would, in fact, achieve the object. From the point of view of the Board of Trade, these knives are essential to certain trades.

That is really nonsense.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the increasing unemployment in the City of Bristol, he will assist the export to Russia and China of goods produced in Bristol.

In August the strategic controls were lifted from a large number of items which can now be exported if these countries are interested to buy them here. We are anxious to expand trade with Russia and China and give business men in Bristol all the help we can.

Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that there is an effective market in both China and Russia for the goods produced in the factories in Bristol, where there is growing unemployment? Trade needs stimulating by the Government, and it is only the Government who can stimulate it. What are the Government doing to stimulate this trade?

I imagine that one of the articles that the hon. Gentleman has in mind is the Britannia aircraft. We have just said that we will give extended credit facilities for the export of Britannias.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken in recent months, under the Distribution of Industry (Financial Provisions) Act and otherwise, to assist industrial development in the Western Isles, in view of the high and persistent unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

I have included the Western Isles among the places where financial assistance may be given under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has told the hon. Member of the applications already received. It has never been easy to find new projects for the area. I hope, however, that the new Act may help.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is not likely that he will get applications in this area from large firms for projects able to offer dramatic increases in employment? Therefore, will he give special attention to the small firms, or even to individuals who may be able, by help under the Act, to employ one, two or three more people? If the right hon. Gentleman would keep that in mind and not impose dead average criteria over big industrial areas and outlying areas and islands, it would be a great help.

I have very much in mind that small firms are the most likely applicants.

Has the right hon. Gentleman given further consideration to the form which is sent out to applicants to complete? It is a most intimidating document which makes them feel that it virtually rules them out. If the right hon. Gentleman could redraft the form to show that small firms are eligible for this help, it would do a good deal to restore confidence in the North.

We are doing that, and I hope that the result will be satisfactory.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will require all public limited companies to state separately in their accounts expenditure for political purposes.

No, Sir. This is not the type of information which the Companies Act envisages as necessary for the protection of shareholders and potential shareholders.

Are not the public entitled to know the growing extent of this undemocratic practice? For instance, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one company, Stewart & Lloyds Limited, has spent recently £13,050 on one advertisement in nine Sunday newspapers attacking public ownership? In addition, without a separate statement, how is it possible to prevent these companies avoiding tax?

If I were able to make the regulation for which the hon. Gentleman asks, I am not sure that it would achieve his object. It is so clearly in the interests of a public company to protect itself against nationalisation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that the publication of a few subscriptions might stimulate many others.

Since this House has placed upon trade unions a statutory obligation to prepare and submit separately their political accounts setting out every penny which is spent on political purposes, why does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be unjust to compel companies to do exactly what the Government are compelling the trade unions to do? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

The Companies Act does not envisage in paragraph 12 of the Eighth Schedule this kind of expense as one for which special provision should be made.

Answer the question.

My question was: Why is it unfair to compel companies to do this when this House compels trade unions to do exactly the same thing?

The subscription which one takes from members who do not want to give it and hands to a political party differs from an expense which the shareholders can perfectly well inquire into if they wish.

Is it not a fact that every trade union subscription is subject to opting out, whereas in the large public companies shareholders have no effective control over this expenditure? In view of the Government's appeal to trade unions to show restraint in wage claims, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether they think the knowledge that this money is being spent so lavishly on political purposes is the best way to secure wage restraint? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman say how much of this money would be spent if the Chancellor were not paying for three-quarters of it?

I cannot accept the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, but I think it is generally agreed that it is in the interests of a public company to take action to protect its own business, and a company that is threatened with nationalisation is perfectly right in taking protective action.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of the trade union magazines, the accounts of which do not appear in the political levy, use that opportunity to put forward political views?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this advertising is not confined to firms who think that they have a direct interest, from the firm's point of view, in nationalisation, but large subscriptions are going, for instance, to the Federation of British Industries, to the Aims of Industry, and to many other institutions which are running political propaganda against the Labour Party?

Firms have an interest in the economic system of which they are a member.

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

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if, in addition to existing arrangements for the repayment of post-war credits, he will repay a further fixed sum each year by way of drawings through the medium of the electronic random numeral indicating equipment;

(2) if he will reduce the age at which post-war credits will be repaid.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the light of current economic conditions, he will now consider earlier repayment of post-war credits.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) on 11th November.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that I made the suggestion contained in my first Question in the most helpful spirit? I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have great difficulty, if he is considering facilitating the rate of repayment, in deciding between the conflicting views of many people who think they have a special claim or privilege in this question. Would not the use of E.R.N.I.E. as an impartial arbitrator greatly assist him in the solution of this problem? If I may deal with the second of my Questions which my hon. and learned Friend has answered, is it not a fact that for many people very soon the post-war credits will become posthumous credits?

I recognise readily the helpful spirit in which my hon. Friend asked this Question. Nevertheless, I think that if money were available for further release it would probably be best to distribute it by way of a reduction in the qualifying age for repayment rather than by random selection. With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I would refer him to the answer which was given by my right hon. Friend on Tuesday.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that I am well aware of all these stonewalling answers, and of many we had had before? Is he further aware that, however valid they were in the context and time in which they were made, they surely cannot continue to exist in the present state of the economy, which has at least undergone some measure of change?

I think my hon. Friend underestimates my power of stonewalling.

Not even before that one.

In view of the public concern arising out of this matter, would not the hon. and learned Gentleman look at the situation and at any rate release post-war credits to the next of kin upon the death of a person who owns them? That ought to be administratively possible quite easily. It would certainly go a long way towards easing some of the great criticism which there is of the lack of action in this matter.

Yes, my right hon. Friend does keep this matter continually under review.

While I would be the last person to underestimate the hon. and learned Gentleman's power of stonewalling, may I ask if it is not a fact that we have now been told officially by no less a person than the Lord Mayor of London that St. George at 10, Downing Street, has slain inflation, and in these circumstances, as the argument against repayment of post-war credits needs rather urgent reconsideration, without waiting for an election Budget, will the Government consider paying off post-war credits in cases of acute hardship among widows. pensioners, and others on National Assistance?

I am not responsible for the pronouncements of the Lord Mayor of London. With regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I would refer him to the answer I gave last week on the question of repaying on the basis of hardship.

More stonewalling.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further consideration has been given to the possibility of accepting post-war credits in payment of Estate Duty.

My right hon. Friend has given further consideration to this possibility, but he regrets that he is still not able to adopt it.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a large number of Government creditors have been waiting at least thirteen years for repayment of their forced loans? Would he not therefore offer the same interest-free credit terms to those who are liable to pay this destructive tax on capital, and if he will not do so, will he explain the justification for the differential treatment?

I do not think that the question of Estate Duty is in any way comparable with that of post-war credits. At to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I would respectfully refer him to what was said by my right hon. Friend on Tuesday.

Will the Financial Secretary tell us how much is now outstanding under this heading and what would be the effect if the Chancellor saw his way to reduce the ages of men and women by five years in each case?

The total now outstanding is approximately £440 million, and the cost of a five-year reduction in the qualifying age would be approximately £85 million in the year of change.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to reduce the rate of interest charged to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Board.

The rates charged by the Public Works Loan Board will, as usual, be adjusted when this is warranted by changes in the rates at which local authorities can borrow in the market.

As even the Chancellor as well as the Lord Mayor of London now admit that the need is for re-expanding our economy, how is it justifiable to impose this penal interest rate on local government house building? Does the Economic Secretary realise that the Government are now offering loans of public money to building societies at a lower rate than they are lending to local authorities for the same purpose?

The rate is in accordance with the policy previously announced, and the latest reduction was made as recently as 25th October.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since then hire-purchase loans to building societies have been announced? How can it be right to lend public money to building societies for house building at lower rates than to local authorities?

Loans are made to local authorities for many other purposes than house building.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the need for special action to restore full employment in the United Kingdom economy, especially in areas like Newcastle-under-Lyme, where the percentage of unemployment has risen to 3·6 per cent. compared with the national average of 2·2 per cent.; and what particular measures he is planning for this purpose.

I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the successive measures my right hon. Friend has announced in recent months to encourage the highest possible levels of employment, consistent with the avoidance of inflation. Some of these measures are designed specifically for areas of high unemployment though others should have a more general effect.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will give no sort of satisfaction at all to the increasing numbers of my constituents who have been suffering unemployment over the last three years? Is he aware that some sort of positive action is required in these places which are suffering a higher than average unemployment? As a short-term programme I would suggest the abolition of Purchase Tax on pottery, building the by-pass around Newcastle-under-Lyme, and adding two or three school projects to the school building programme. Will he consider with his colleagues these positive measures as a start? After he has accepted those, I will give him a few more.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be grateful for those suggestions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage and amount of consumers' expenditure upon food is attributable to rising prices for each year from 1951 to the nearest convenient date in 1958;

(2) by how much, in percentage and amount, import prices have fallen in each year since 1951 to the nearest convenient date in 1958; and

(3) the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling for each year since 1951, taking the value of the £ sterling as 20s. in October, 1951, to the nearest convenient date in 1958.

As the Answer is long and contains tables of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why food prices have risen so steeply and why the internal purchasing power of the £ has fallen so heavily in recent years?

I would ask the hon. Member to study the tables of figures first, particularly as there will be a further opportunity of questioning me next Thursday, when the Treasury will be at the top of the list.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Iron and Steel Holdings Realisation Agency authorised Richard Thomas and Baldwin's Limited to contribute to a publication issued by the British Iron and Steel Federation in October, 1958, attacking steel nationalisation; and whether he will give instructions that public money should not be spent on subsidising propaganda against public ownership.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are taken by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency to ensure that no contributions are made, directly or indirectly, by iron and steel companies, the shares of which are held by the Agency, towards advertising or other forms of a political campaign against national ownership of the industry.

It is a standing instruction from the Agency to the companies they hold that no contribution should be made to any political organisation. Richard Thomas and Baldwin's, in common with other steel producers, makes a contribution to the administrative expenses of the British Iron and Steel Federation. No question arose of making any special contribution to the publication to which the hon. Member presumably refers.

But is it not a fact that Richard Thomas, which is still publicly owned, have contributed towards recent Steel Federation advertisements in the newspapers, in addition to the pamphlet I have mentioned, attacking public ownership and costing thousands of pounds? Is it not grossly unfair and inequitable that the Government should be using taxpayers' money to subsidise what is virtually Conservative Party policy?

As I said, no question of any special provision arose, and I should like to stress that the Agency keeps the question of subscriptions under continual review.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Government also will keep it strictly under review and ensure that no contributions, directly or indirectly, are made on a political matter like this by companies which are still the property of the nation and the people?

My right hon. Friend has every confidence in the Agency carrying out its periodical review.

Will the hon. Gentleman state that the Government deprecate any public body of this kind using public money for party political purposes?

Answer yes or no.

I think that is a hypothetical question.

Oh.

In view of the earlier Questions, will the hon. Gentleman say whether in paying money to the Iron and Steel Federation, Richard Thomas and Baldwin have a right to opt out of paying that part of the money which is devoted to political purposes, as every trade unionist in this country has?

My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the affairs of the British Iron and Steel Federation.

Is this not just further evidence of corrupt practices by the party opposite?

Answer.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to my Question No. 52, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has studied the 13th Annual Report of the Arts Council of Great Britain, 1957–58; and whether he will make a statement.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes," and to the second part "No, Sir".

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman consider that £1¼ million is an adequate sum for the State and local authorities to give to the arts and music as compared with £16 million which they give, and rightly so, to public libraries and £1,600 million which is given to defence? Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman look into this matter again? Does ho have no regard for the fact that the arts and music have done far more for British reputation abroad than the present Government have done?

I can safely disregard the last part of that question. With regard to the first part, the requirements of the Arts Council will, of course, be kept under review at the time of the Estimates.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that this is not a party point? I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House feel that in these circumstances—[Interruption.] This is not a party point; I am not making one. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that in all parts of the House—if this can be denied, let it be denied—there is a desire that more should be spent on arts and amenities? In the period in which this matter is under consideration, will the hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend give consideration to what, on all sides, is recognised to be the totally derisory amount which is given for this purpose? In a period of national expansion, can we not do more?

Expenditure on the Arts Council has risen from £235,000 in 1945–46 to £1,100,000 now. In each of the last two years, there has been an increase of £100,000 or more. I know that many hon. Members in all parts of the House would like to see more spent on the arts, but, on the other hand, my right hon. Friend has 'to consider the many claims made upon the Exchequer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of capital investment it is proposed to authorise for the roads programme, the nationalised electric power industry and the British Transport Commission, respectively, during the year 1959–60.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent, in each case, restrictions imposed on the investment programmes of nationalised industries in 1957 have now been relaxed.

It was intended in 1957 that the power and transport industries would invest more in 1959–60 than they did in 1957–58. During the summer these increases have been augmented, and further short-term additions are now being made. In total, as my right hon. Friend said last week, there will be a substantial increase over last year. But since the programmes are under continuous consideration, I cannot at this stage give precise figures for them, either individually or in aggregate.

When does the Economic Secretary consider he will be able to give the precise figures for these different industries, particularly transport and roads? How is it that when a ceiling has been placed upon expenditure, atter a cut-back the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no difficulty whatever in telling us the amount which the different industries can spend, but that when there is an increase the Government carefully hold back and withhold information from the House?

I should like to be more helpful to the hon. Member, but at this stage, as I said in my Answer, it is not possible for me to be so.

Can we be told whether the increase this year is more than it was last year before the cut was made, or whether it is merely restoring the cut?

I would require notice of that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has noted the financial help given by the London County Council and the Independent Television Authority to the Sadlers Wells Opera Company; and whether he will now substantially increase the grant to the Arts Council so that Covent Garden may be adequately supported.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir". On the second part of the Question, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Estimates for 1959–60.

Is it accepted by the Financial Secretary and the Government generally that the greatest patron of Covent Garden is the Government themselves, who use it for prestige purposes? Has the hon. and learned Gentleman noted a recent statement by the Director of Covent Garden that if things continue as they are, ultimately and, perhaps, not very far away in time, this institution will have to close down and we shall have no grand opera in London? Has the hon. and learned Gentleman further noted the view of Lord Bridges, and does he agree with it, that it might be as well to take this matter away from the Arts Council and put it on the Vote as it is, indeed, a national institution?

I have, indeed noted the observations to which the hon. Member draws attention. The actual distribution of the Arts Council grant is a matter for the Arts Council in which my right hon. Friend does not interfere. I would, however, point out that the grants to Covent Garden have risen from £25,000 in 1945–46 to £362,000 this year.

rose—

We cannot debate this now. Hon. Members must choose another opportunity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will allow contributions to the arts by industrial establishments to qualify for exemption from taxation.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not see his way to propose a change of this character in the general taxation law.

Does the Financial Secretary not agree that if the Government themselves will not adequately support the arts, they should make it easy for industry and private citizens to do so, and that if they will not themselves pay for it and they allow no one else easily to come forward to take a part, that is a disgraceful state of affairs?

No, Sir. To make a tax change of this sort would involve a remission in taxation to individual taxpayers and, thus, a burden on the general body of taxpayers, which would amount to a Government subvention. It would not be shifting the burden from the Government to anybody else. With regard to the actual proposal, I do not think that it would be practical to make a distinction between one type of good cause such as this and another.

In view of earlier answers this afternoon, why do the Government allow tax deductions for contributions for political purposes, direct and indirect, and refuse them for contributions to arts? Are the Government not making this distinction between a good cause and a bad one?

No, Sir. In general, payments for political purposes are not a proper deduction from gross income. [Interruption.] The Tate and Lyle case turned on a narrow point. The test laid down by the general taxation law applies to all types of expenditure. The expenditure must not be of a capital nature and it must be laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade. My understanding of the Tate and Lyle case is that it was merely said that a company was entitled to lay out expenditure for the protection of its assets.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether contributions to the F.B.I. for its pamphlet on nationalisation are allowed for tax purposes as being wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade of the firm concerned?

I should require notice of that question, because, as far as I know, it has not arisen in any case.

If the industry concerned employed the services of one or other eminent artist to illustrate its propaganda, would it rank for exemption from tax?

On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Are Privy Councillors entitled to ask any number of questions?

I am afraid there is no Ruling against it.

I have risen three times to ask a supplementary question.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been informed of the fall in sales of bicycles both for export and The home trade and if he will therefore assist this industry by abolishing the Purchase Tax.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the continued reduction of the sale of bicycles on the home market; and what proposals he has to make with a view to the reduction of Purchase Tax.

I have nothing to add to the Answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) earlier this week.

Does the Economic Secretary accept that he has had representations made to him from all sides of the House from very many hon. Members on this matter, and that this is a very serious subject? Could not help be given to the industry now, before it is too late?

Is not my hon. Friend aware that owing to the success of the Conservative Government many more people are now riding about in motor cars instead of on bicycles?

I must say that I think that that is a fact which the manufacturers of bicycles ought to take into account in addition to the tax matter.

Does not the hon. Gentleman also realise that for a large number of working-class people a bicycle is the only mean of getting about and going to work? Does he also realise that his reply to the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) is not a fair answer to this problem? Would he not give us some definite information as to what his right hon. Friend intends to do about the matter?

The question dealt with the manufacturers of bicycles rather than with the users of them.

Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Purchase Tax is removed it will encourage more people to buy bicycles, that this will reduce their fatigue in getting to work and thereby increase industrial output? Does he also realise that bicycles are also useful for physical recreation?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the current difficulties of British shipping, he will receive a deputation of representatives of the industry.

Yes, Sir.

I am grateful for that reply. May I ask my hon. and learned Friend if he will invite his right hon. Friend, before he receives a deputation, to reflect upon two things? First, that in the past 20 years there has been no new entrant into the British shipping industry; and secondly, that the tax straitjacket in which the industry now languishes enhances the already excessive good fortune enjoyed by operators of shipping under flags of convenience?

Yes, Sir. I will draw my hon. Friend's observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the provisions for depreciation of ships.

My right hon. Friend will consider this matter.

May I ask if particular consideration could be given to the possibility of allowing British shipowners to write off the cost of their ships so soon as their profits allow them to do so, without any other restrictions? Is he aware that it is in this field particularly, where we are extending to these flags of convenience owners, who have already enjoyed an excessive good fortune, an advantage which they have done nothing to deserve?

Yes, Sir, that will be one of the matters which my right hon. Friend will take into consideration. On the other hand, I am bound to point out that, following the recent tax remissions in favour of the shipping industry, 88 per cent. of the cost of new dry cargo vessels and 95 per cent, of the cost of new tankers is allowed for tax purposes in the first five years.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the dissatisfaction on immutability in the field of pensions which is disadvantageous to those living on small fixed incomes, he will introduce legislation to enable appeals from those drawing pensions affected by immutability to go to arbitration, thus giving equality to all sections affected by inflation.

No, Sir. The best way to help all who live on small fixed incomes and the way we have tried to follow is to keep inflation under control. If everyone is to contract out of inflation, I fear this will not make the task of controlling inflation any easier.

May I ask my right hon. Friend why that is laid down for those living on small fixed incomes when other people have the right to go to arbitration? Is it not a monstrous injustice, when the Conservative Party wants "one nation", to have two nations? Is not this a monstrous injustice to those living on small fixed incomes?

I think that the record of the last few years, both in regard to tax assistance and various other methods of helping those with small incomes, and in regard to Pensions (Increase) Acts and the stability of the cost of living, is a good record.

The hon. Lady does not agree.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the staging in this country of the European Games of 1962 would bring much prestige to Great Britain; and if Her Majesty's Government will take steps, by provision of a grant or otherwise, to ensure that this is achieved.

I think it is right that the Government should leave this matter to the sporting organisations.

The Prime Minister seems to be singularly uninformed. Is he aware that the generosity and public spirit shown by the News of the World have now put a better face on this matter and is the reason for this Question being on the Order Paper today? Might I further ask the Prime Minister if he realises that these Games have never been held in Britain but have been held in Italy, France, Norway, Belgium, Switzerland, and Sweden? Does he not think, as Leader of the Government of the day, that some steps should be taken to help this country in sporting affairs?

I think it is splendid that the Games will take place in Britain. The Empire Games were held in Wales this year with great success, but no subvention was asked for or required and a handsome profit was made. The Olympic Games were held in this country in 1948, and succeeded in doing so without loss or subvention. The Government gave some minor assistance in providing building materials and so forth, and I am very glad to know that in this way it will be possible to hold these Games.

Perhaps I was only wrong—or not so wrong—in regarding the News of the World as a sporting organisation.

As the staff of the Prime Minister has so misinformed him, and as I would hate him to go in error, may I ask him if he is aware that it is not yet, unfortunately, a case of these Games being held here but merely that it is possible now to make application for them, and that the News of the World has made that possible?

Whether they are held here or not is not a question of financial support.