asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will terminate the inequality in tax burden between the owner-occupier of a residence elevated upon wheels and the owner-occupier of a residence the foundations of which are immobile.

I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Is not it another of the anomalies under Schedule A tax that the owner-occupier of, for example, a residence costing £500 should have to pay tax and the owner-occupier of, for example, a caravan costing perhaps £1,000 should get off scot-free? Will my right hon. Friend look into this or possibly do away with Schedule A tax altogether?

As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I will certainly look into this, as I will into any other point which is relevant to this Question that he cares to raise with me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are taken by the Inland Revenue authorities to draw the attention of the taxpayer to his right, in certain circumstances, to claim relief from Income Tax, Schedule A, on the sums expended on maintenance of his property, fire insurance and management where those exceed the statutory repairs allowance.

Attention is drawn to this relief in the notes accompanying demands and receipts for Schedule A tax, Income Tax return forms and Pay-As-You-Earn coding notices.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it appears that between one-tenth and one-twelfth only of owner-occupiers make any claim in this connection? Will he bear in mind the need to draw attention to the entitlement to make this claim so that the other owner-occupiers, who are paying about £34 million a year in tax, may have an opportunity to secure some relief?

There is no guarantee that they would secure any relief, because that would depend on the circumstances. I think that the notices which are included are very adequate to the purpose.

asked the Chancellor of Exchequer upon what principle maintenance claims against Schedule A Income Tax liability may include wall covering, for example, repapering, but not floor covering, for example, renewal of linoleum, liquid or otherwise.

I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to claims made by owner-occupiers. The principle is that the expenses which are admissible are those which are incurred by the owner-occupier as owner and not those which he incurs as occupier. The detailed application of this rule in cases of dispute is a matter for the General Commissioners of Income Tax.

Does not this rule show the out-of-date nature of Schedule A tax altogether? Is not it a fact that in modern dwellings floor coverings are just as usual and as common as wall coverings? Will my right hon. Friend look at the rule again in present circumstances?

I do not think that is necessary. It is just a question of what would normally be a landlord's responsibility and what would normally be a tenant's responsibility, and that is precisely the line we try to draw.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will permit the allowance in maintenance claims against Schedule A Income Tax liability of a reasonable sum for labour when the owner-occupier himself carries out the repair work.

No, Sir; only actual expenditure can be allowed.

Is not this grossly unfair to the person who tries to save money by doing his own work in the house? Does not it benefit the person who has the money and can afford to pay for it to be done?

No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The point here is what the man actually has to pay for.

If the income itself is taken in real terms as liable to taxation, surely the maintenance in real terms might be included also?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that anticipation of substantial Purchase Tax reductions, also of further measures of simplification of the tax, to be included in his April, 1959, Budget, will cause prospective buyers of many items, notably motor cars and television and radio sets, taxed at 60 per cent., to postpone purchases until after Tuesday, 15th April, 1959; and, in view of trade dislocation, withholding of orders by the distributive trade to factories, and the consequential danger of increased short-time working and unemployment thereby resulting, whether he will effect all intended Purchase Tax reductions, and no increases, on 1st January, 1959, instead of in his April, 1959, Budget.

I must refer my hon. Friend once again to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on 18th November.

But is not mounting winter unemployment, often wrongly described as seasonal unemployment, in the first quarter of every year, now most largely due to uncertainties in connection with Purchase Tax changes? Is not it a fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to avoid these disruptions in industry, made his announcement of Purchase Tax changes early in the new year? Will my right hon. Friend follow that admirable precedent?

I doubt whether uncertainty over Purchase Tax is, as my hon. Friend implies, the main factor or even one of the chief factors in the seasonal unemployment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the yield of Purchase Tax has increased from £290 million in 1950–51, representing some 7 per cent. of total revenue of approximately £4,000 million, to over £490 million, representing nearly 10 per cent. of total revenue in 1958–59 of approximately £5,000 million; and whether he will now state on what grounds he considers it justifiable to obtain such substantially larger proportion of the revenue by means of Purchase Tax, having regard to the inflationary effects of this increase.

As regards the first part of the Question, my hon. Friend has exaggerated the increase in the Purchase Tax yield as a proportion of total revenue. As regards the second part, I am aware of my hon. Friend's views, but he will not be surprised if I do not agree with him.

There is always room for disagreement in these matters. Would not my right hon. Friend concede the accuracy of the fact that last year he collected £494 million in Purchase Tax, that this year he Budgeted for £491 million in Purchase Tax, and that, pro rata, for the first seven months of this year, converted to the full current year, he will actually gather in £520 million in Purchase Tax, or £2 million per working day out of the wage earners' pay packets? Surely he ought to do something about that.

I limited myself to pointing out the inaccuracy in the figures which my hon. Friend included in his Question, and I must urge him, if he wishes to score as many goals as I know he would like to do in the next few months, to concentrate on accuracy.

Is not the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) this time quite accurate in saying that the present Government are raising in Purchase Tax £200 million more than the Labour Government and a total tax revenue of £1,000 million more?

I am only expressing the hope that my hon. Friend will always be accurate.

May I ask a further supplementary question, Sir? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is a very short one. Would my right hon. Friend refer to the Report of O.E.E.C., published 48 hours ago, urgently stressing the need for further Purchase Tax reduction?

I am aware of the Report to which my hon. Friend refers.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason valve replacements for radio sets and cathode ray tubes for television sets are subject to Purchase Tax at 60 per cent., whereas spare parts, for example sparking plugs, for other articles, subject to purchase tax at 60 per cent., for example motor cars, are not so liable; and whether he will correct this anomaly at an early date.

For revenue reasons. Quite different considerations arise in the case of spare parts for vehicles.

I am a practical man, Sir. Is not it the fact that a sparking plug makes a motor car go, that a cathode ray tube makes a television set go and that a valve makes a radio set go? As all these are essential spare parts, why should my right hon. Friend be so predatory in taking 60 per cent. Purchase Tax on radio valves or cathode ray tubes and nothing on sparking plugs for motor cars? Surely he should be practical, reasonable and equitable in all these matters?

I think my hon. Friend rather over-simplifies things, as he sometimes does. A sparking plug is not the thing that makes a motor car go, but one of the things that makes a motor car go. As a practical man, I think he will know the difference between a cathode ray tube and a sparking plug, and between a radio set and a motor vehicle.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to us why this practical man last year did not vote with us in the Division Lobby for the reduction of the 60 per cent. Purchase Tax on cathode ray tubes?

My hon. Friend is far too practical a man to vote in the Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Philips Price.

On the human side of this matter, is the Chancellor aware that both the Purchase Tax—

On a point of order. Is not it a fact that before the right hon. Gentleman asked his Question, you called the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price)?

Yes, but, before the hon. Member rose to ask Question No. 8, the right hon. Gentleman got up to ask another supplementary question.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but my question will be a very short one. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both the Purchase Tax and the high price of cathode ray tubes prevent a very large number of people of humble means from enjoying this very important contribution to modern life?

I will take into consideration, when considering my taxation proposals, the point the right hon. Gentleman has made.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to reduce the cost of living, the unemployment in the wool textile and clothing industries, and the recently-created tax anomalies, he will consider removing the Purchase Tax on wool cloth.

I removed the tax on wool cloth in my last Budget. Tax is charged at 5 per cent. on clothing made of wool.

Is not it grossly anomalous that if a customer buys a suit length and takes it to his tailor, no tax is payable, yet if he buys a suit length from the same tailor—his own tailor—tax is payable, both on the material and on the making-up charge? Is not that a daft idea? Will the Chancellor before April consider removing this tax, particularly in view of the heavy unemployment in these industries?

That is just the point I was making.

The change was made last year at the request of many organisations representative of the trade in order to reduce anomalies. Again, I will certainly bear in mind the points which the hon. Gentleman has made.

Would the Chancellor agree that the anomalies created by only half taking off the tax were not introduced at the request of the trade, and that we produced many items of evidence to suggest that it would create more anomalies? Secondly, is he aware that one of his predecessors, the Lord Privy Seal, refused to take the tax off cotton goods until after the date of the 1955 General Election was announced, and said that it would be dishonest to do so? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is going to do anything about this, to do it now, in order to remove uncertainty and unemployment in the trade, and not wait until a pre-election Budget?

I will take into consideration the points which the right hon. Gentleman has raised.

My Question was non-political, not like the last one.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied that the higher rates of Purchase Tax are not limiting the ability of many industries to increase their exports; and if he will review these rates.

I shall be reviewing the whole field of taxation at the appropriate time; my hon. Friend must not expect me to comment on particular aspects now.

Has there not been all along a singular reluctance by the Treasury to admit that a virile, expanding export industry cannot export without a large domestic industry as well?

May I add that there is also a continuing responsibility on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that he raises the requisite amount of revenue?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the almost complete absence of British books and publications from countries with balance of payment difficulties such as some in the Middle East and Southern Asia, he will consider means by which a limited amount of sterling currency would be available to meet such conditions.

I would refer the hon. Member to the general statement on the Government Information Services by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 3rd November.

Is it a fact that certain countries with balance of payments difficulties are literally without any English books or publications, particularly countries like Turkey and Pakistan? Since this is a very serious matter, cannot the Chancellor do something more than refer me to a Question which was answered some time ago?

I think that Answer was very relevant, but the problem which the hon. Gentleman raises is a serious one, and it is one to which attention is being given. My right hon. Friend pointed out that that precise aspect of the problem, with others, is at present under consideration, and that he will be making an announcement in due course.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to pay interest at 5 per cent. per annum in respect of post-war credits not repaid after 1st January, 1959.

I regret that I cannot see my way to adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Is not this a reasonable suggestion, in view of the fact that these forced loans have now subsisted for about 17 years, and would not it be fair to these people who have had to wait so much longer than those who have already been paid?

I will continue to take into consideration my hon. Friend's views.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider authorising the purchase of the right to post-war credits within five years of their maturing by the banks or by other authorised financial institutions.

No, Sir. I could not undertake to introduce an arrangement of this sort.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a rather disappointing Answer for some people? What would be the objection to an arrangement of this nature, bearing in mind that in France, for example, similar debts of individuals are sometimes paid in the form of post-dated bonds?

It would be very difficult to do administratively. Every one of these claims before it is effective has to be checked in detail. It would create more rigidity and make it more difficult for the Government to change the conditions for repayment if we found ourselves able to do so, for example, by advancing the age for repayment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that £9 million has been paid out in cases of hardship to doctors in advance of their retirement under the National Health Service scheme for compensating doctors for the loss of the right to sell the goodwill of their practices; and if he will adopt similar criteria for judging hardship in order to repay post-war credits in cases where such hardship exists.

I regret that my hon. Friend's suggestion would not provide a satisfactory basis for repayment of postwar credits.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members are trying to help him in his difficulty of defining hardship? Would he say in what way the standards adopted by his Department differ from those adopted by the Ministry of Health and by the National Assistance Board?

In the case of doctors the circumstances are very different. It is a question of interpreting hardship in a very much narrower field than in these cases. I think that summarises the difficulties.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the expectancy of life of women is greater than that of men, whether he will consider paying post-war credits to men at the age of 60 rather than at 65 years.

I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.

Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that the present position is illogical? In view of the fact that men are generous by nature, would not both men and women benefit by reduction of the age of payment?

I certainly subscribe to the attribute that the hon. Gentleman applied to men, but I would remind him that the qualifying ages are not based on expectancy of life.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now reconsider his decision not to pay Mr. T. Yates, 83, Victoria Street, Newtown, Wigan, his post-war credits.

No, Sir. Mr. Yates has not reached the qualifying age, and I have no power to authorise repayment in his case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very distressing case, that this man has worked in the mines for 36 years, has contracted lung disease and has been unable to work for the last 11 years? Does not he think this is the sort of case where repayment is due?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this clearly is a distressing case. The difficulty that all Governments have found is that of drawing the line. There are so many distressing cases that it is difficult to define when a case ceases to be distressing. I have explained how unhappy I am not to be able to meet cases like that. I am once again looking into the position to see whether it is possible to devise any system where lines can be drawn sensibly and satisfactorily, but I am not hopeful.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the prospects of forming a closer economic union with Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, having regard to the circumstance that the first common market tariff cuts and quota enlargements are due to be made on 1st January.

I do not think I could usefully add to my reply to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) on 18th November.

Bearing in mind that the prospects of agreement on a European Free Trade Area have now receded severely, would not the arrangements suggested in the Question at least partially cover the right hon. Gentleman's nakedness in the conference room?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about my nakedness. So far as his Question is concerned, the Government still believe that something like the Free Trade Area is still the best line for Europe.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what offers have been received from the countries of the European Economic Community to extend voluntarily to the proposed free trade area countries the tariff reductions to be made on 1st January under the Rome Treaty; and what reply Her Majesty's Government gave.

The Six made known their intentions to the O.E.E.C. yesterday. The matter will be before the O.E.E.C. Council of Ministers when it meets, probably next week.

Is the Paymaster-General aware that distinguished representatives of the Community have been saying privately for some time that an offer was made as long ago as last July to the British Government to extend these cuts on 1st January, and that it was turned down by the British Government? If that is not true, as is believed by many people, will the right hon. Gentleman deny it?

I am glad to have the opportunity of saying that it is totally untrue, because the only thing that happened in July was that it was suggested by the European Community that the idea of a provisional agreement might be considered, but no proposals were made. At that time it was felt by the Govern-merits concerned that it would be premature to consider a provisional agreement. In fact, when we met last October the question was again raised, and the representatives of the Six still said that it was premature.

If this offer is still open for 1st January, what is Her Majesty's Government's attitude to it?

I have explained that no such offer has ever been made. A proposal reached the O.E.E.C. yesterday which will be considered, I hope, next week.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why local authorities are charged a higher rate of interest than building societies for 20-year loans of public money for house purchase.

I would refer the right hon. Member to my reply of 2nd December to the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool. Exchange (Mrs. Braddock).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he told me in an Answer on 20th November that, through the Public Works Loan Board, he charges a rate of 5⅞ per cent. for 20 years on a loan for house purchase to local authorities, and that in the White Paper he proposes to charge only 5½ per cent. for the same purpose to building societies? How does the right hon. Gentleman justify that difference?

It is difficult to compare loans which are raised on fixed interest terms and loans where the interest rate is variable. It is difficult to say how this proposed scheme would work out over the years. We do not know the current rates that will be charged under the Public Works Loan Board system, nor the current rates to be charged in respect of building societies.

Does that justify this discrimination? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again and see whether he can get the two rates into line?

We shall be discussing this point later on the Bill.

Can my right hon. Friend hold out reasonable hopes that both rates will come down in the near future?

My hon. Friend knows that the Public Works Loan Board rate is linked with the current rate in the market for local authority borrowing and so is dependent upon the current rate in the market.

Is the implication of the Chancellor's argument about fixed rates and variable rates that the prospect over the years is of rates even higher than these? Is that what he is looking to?

That is not the inference to be drawn from what I have said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage increase in the amount of annual revenue provided from motor vehicle and petrol taxation in 1958 compared with 1938.

The answer is 392 per cent.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that that is an astonishing figure? Does not he think that the motorist should pay rather less in taxation?

The motorist, like everyone else, would like to pay rather less in taxation and, consistent with my requirement to raise the revenue, I would agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, the motorist and everyone else.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated yield in the current financial year from licensed vehicle duty and fuel oil duty.

£100 million from motor vehicle duty and £345 million from the hydrocarbon oil duties.

Would the Chancellor agree that the London Transport Executive is paying something like £5 million a year under these two headings and that is one of the reasons why it finds it necessary to cut bus services in the Greater London area, thereby causing grave concern to the public? In the circumstances, will he have a look at this matter to see whether the tax might be reduced in the next Budget?

I am afraid that without notice I cannot corroborate the accuracy of the figure the hon. Member has given, and I am not sure that I could do so even with notice. Of course, the duties form one element in costs, but against that they bring in a large amount of revenue which I should find it difficult to do without.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage of taxes compared to national income in 1951 and at the latest date in 1958.

Central Government revenue from taxation amounted to about 34½ per cent. of the national income in 1951 and 29 per cent. in 1957. I regret that comparable figures for 1958 are not yet available.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that this is a very welcome sign of the success of Tory government?

I should be inclined to agree with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Would the Chancellor also agree that the amount of taxation raised by the present Government has increased by 50 per cent. since 1951 and that if the national income had risen as much under the present Government as it did under the Labour Government, the percentage year by year of the national income going into taxation instead of this policy of stagnation would have fallen even more rapidly?

I am not inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the insistence, as a condition of a Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee loan, that alternative finance should not be available to a firm, is hampering the effectiveness of the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958; and whether he will relax this condition.

No, Sir; the condition is laid down in the Act and I have no power to relax it. In any case, if capital can be raised on reasonable terms from normal commercial sources, there is no need for loans by the Treasury.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this has provoked a real difficulty because reputable firms who could get finance elsewhere find that there is no incentive, as a result of the Act, to go to these areas at all now that the building restriction is less effective? Will the right hon. Gentleman think over this problem because, in South Wales for example, it has been a deterrent?

I will consider the point that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. Under the Act the Treasury is a lender of last resort and not a lender of first resort.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, have so far been received from Caernarvonshire; and how many have been rejected, accepted, and are still under consideration, respectively.

Three firm and eligible applications have so far been received from Caernarvonshire. All three are now under consideration.

Does not that information bear out what my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has just said, that this Act does not contain any real incentive to firms to come to areas like North Wales? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment in Caernarvonshire is over 9 per cent., and is constantly increasing? Will he at least see that the appropriate committee deals with the utmost speed arid sympathy with all the applications which have been received?

I am sorry to hear the level of unemployment to which the hon. Member has referred. I can only give an assurance that every application made will be looked at as sympathetically and quickly as circumstances permit, but the hon. Member will understand that inquiries always have to be made after an application has been sent in.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give figures to show the difference at the latest available date in 1958 compared with the same date in 1951 of the number of Government Ministries and the number of civil servants, respectively.

There are 23 Government Ministries now; there were 27 in 1951. On the 1st October, 1958, there were 632,316 non-industrial civil servants; on the 1st October, 1951, there were 685,447.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these figures are another striking example of Conservative success?

I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say how much more rapidly we reduced the number of civil servants in the years after the war—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, and the figures are on the record. If the argument is that we do not want people in allegedly un-productive occupations, would the Chancellor point out to his hon. and gallant Friend that this year alone the number of miscellaneous and other workers in non-productive occupations is increasing by 40,000?

I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that to run down an economy from a war-time to a peace-time administration is not the same as running it down over seven years of peace-time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in laying down the proportion of total assets held as free reserves by building societies in order to qualify for trusteeship status, he selected 1½ per cent. as the initial and 2½ per cent. as the ultimate minimum.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to him on Tuesday, 2nd December, 1958.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it will be extremely difficult for building societies to raise their reserve ratio from 1½ per cent, to 2½ per cent. without either postponing a reduction in mortgage rates or even raising mortgage rates, or at least retarding their rate of growth?

I think the details can best be debated when we come to the Bill.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent under its revised constitution the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries will be required to advise on the allocation of grants to museums and galleries; and what extension of the original terms of reference has taken place or is contemplated.

It will be open to the Standing Commission in future, as it has been in the past under its terms of reference, to advise on the purchase grants of the national museums and galleries. Its terms of reference are wide. No extension has taken place and I do not think any is called for at present.

With terms of reference as wide as these, is the Chancellor satisfied that the composition of the Standing Commission is such that there is enough special knowledge available of what is called the international art market?

I think so. I think the composition of the Standing Commission is very appropriate for the function it performs. I am very anxious that the Commission should have full scope for advising me on the important issues involved.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet reached any conclusion about the future level of purchase grants to the national museums and art galleries.

Not yet, Sir.

May I take it that the Chancellor is now seized of the urgent necessity for a substantial increase in the grants and that all he is now considering is the amount of the increase? When may we expect a reply?

Answering the first part of the supplementary question, I am seized of the importance of this question and the wide interest which is taken in it. The hon. Member himself formed a part of the delegation which discussed this matter with me the other day and did his best to ensure that I was seized of the importance of it. In answer to the second part of his supplementary question I can only say, "As soon as feasible".

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be in a position to make a further statement on the applications now before him relating to the British Aluminium Company.

I have no statement to make at present.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has formed of the inflationary effects of the recent removal of restrictions on hire purchase.

I cannot put a precise figure on the increase in expenditure, but I have no reason to think that it will be so great as to produce any general excess of demand or generate an inflation in prices.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power was speaking with the Chancellor's authority or not when he said that if these present hire-purchase derestrictions continue they will lead to raging inflation? Is that the view of the Government and, if so, what are the Government going to do about it?

My view, as I have clearly expressed it, is that relaxations on hire purchase will prove useful and helpful in prevailing circumstances and will provide a useful stimulation which will not involve any excessive demand on the economy.

While thanking the Chancellor for the repudiation of the Parliamentary Secretary—as such we must take it—inay I ask if he will make clear to his hon. Friend, when he has settled his other row with him about the statement he made the other day, that on hire-purchase derestriction the Chancellor thinks his action was right?

I am clearly satisfied that my action was right and I shall continue to account to the House for the working out of these policies. I am quite satisfied in the present circumstances that this step was useful, that it will prove helpful in providing employment in certain sectors of the economy where there was surplus capacity and that it will not involve an excessive demand.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what total amount he estimates would accrue to the Treasury by increasing the Income Tax by 6d. at the standard rate and 3d. at the reduced rates; and what amount would accrue from each of these increases.

About £140 million, of which about £90 million is attributable to 6d. on the standard rate and about £50 million to 3d. on each of the reduced rates.

Instead of taking 6d. off Income Tax in April, would the Chancellor consider allocating some money as a supplement to the National Insurance Fund so that higher pensions may be paid?

I shall take note of what the hon. Member has suggested.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the tax relief at present under the National Insurance Act for a married man with one child under 12 years with £7 per week, with £13 per week, and with £18 per week, respectively.

The Income Tax relief to a married man with one child under 11 years is nil. 11d. and 1s. 8d. a week, respectively.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated total tax relief to all insured persons in a full year under the new pension scheme arising from their contributions towards pensions in the combined scheme, including all those with incomes above £15 a week.

I regret this information is not available.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the approaches that have been made to him, what steps he has taken to secure preservation for the nation of the Ilbert collection of watches.

The British Museum Trustees recently applied for special assistance for several purchases to which they attach importance, including the Ilbert watches. I have agreed to ask Parliament to approve a special grant of £50,000 towards these purchases. An issue from the Civil Contingencies Fund may be necessary and a Supplementary Estimate will be laid before the House in due course. It is for the trustees to decide how they will allocate the special grant between the purchases they wish to make.

While acknowledging what my right hon. Friend has done in this matter, may I ask if he will bear in mind that something like £65,000 out of the total cost of £88,000 for this collection has been found through private sources, which is an exceptionally high total? Will he bear in mind the immense store which the industry, now making half of our watches and exporting about £2 million worth, sets by this collection? Will he make sure that we do not lose the collection if we can possibly avoid that?

The grant I have mentioned was a very substantial part of the grant for which I was asked. I should like to pay tribute to the generous help which is being provided to the trustees from private sources for this object. The actual allocation of the grant among the various bodies, as my hon. Friend agrees is a matter for the trustees.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Association of Municipal Corporations in favour of lower rates of interest for loans to local authorities from the Public Works Loan Board; and the terms of his reply.

I have not received any such representations from this Association.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at its September meeting the General Purposes Committee of the A.M.C. expressed the view that the Public Works Loan Board ought to give a lead to the money market by trying to bring the rates of interest down? In view of the need to encourage local authorities in constructive capital spending in a time of unemployment, should not he take this advice and bring down the Public Works Loan Board rates of interest?

As I have said, I have not received any representations to that effect from the body to which the hon. Member has referred.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the hon. Member for Central Newcastle-upon-Tyne had to wait until 4th December for a reply to his letter dated 13th November on behalf of the Northumberland and Durham Cycle Traders' Association.

I fear that the large number of letters which my Treasury colleagues and I receive sometimes imposes a little delay, but I do not think the delay in this case was unreasonable.

Does the Chancellor realise that if it takes as long as this to get an answer to a letter of this kind, that leads hon. Members to expect a more encouraging reply than the one received? Does not he think it a bit thick to have to wait for three weeks to be told that he will bear the matter in mind?

On many matters I cannot be as forthcoming as I should like to be.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now concluded his discussions with representatives of the Arts Council and the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden; and whether he will make a statement on future grants for opera.

The amount devoted to opera from the Arts Council grant is a matter for the Arts Council and not for me. As to the level of the Arts Council grant for 1959–60, I must ask the hon. Member to await the Estimates.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government spokesman in another place on 27th November stated definitely that discussions are going on at this moment about the position of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden? At the same time as London opera is being discussed with representatives of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, will not he discuss the position of the Carl Rosa Company with a view to getting more opera in the Provinces?

I think that the meeting to which the hon. Member refers was a meeting between the Covent Garden authorities and the Arts Council, at which two representatives of the Treasury were present as assessors.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only on this side of the House but I am sure in all parts of the House and all parts of the country that there is a very strong desire that more should be spent on the arts? It is not good enough to say that we must wait for the Estimates, because we cannot amend the Estimates. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need for doing what my hon. Friend said both in London and in the Provinces and for spreading out more widely in relation to provision for the arts generally?

I am certainly having a wealth of representations made to me on this subject, not all of them exactly in line with one another, but all having one common characteristic—in other words, involving higher expenditure.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the dollar expenditure incurred in the import of matrices of American recorded music; what royalties are paid in dollars on records made from them and sold in the United Kingdom; and the dollar payment for performing fees when the records are broadcast.

Imports from America of matrices for the reproduction of gramophone records for the last twelve months were of the order of £18,800. I regret that no separate figures are available for royalties or performing fees paid in respect of their use.

Is the Chancellor aware that the B.B.C. uses records made from these matrices to give over 80 per cent. American music in its recorded programmes? Is he aware that this causes a grave loss of dollars to us and also gives no encouragement to British composers and song writers? Could he take some steps to increase the use of British artists?

I am aware that the payment of royalties and rights involves a considerable sum of money in total, but I am not at present of the opinion that there is anything unfair or unreasonable in the present arrangements.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the present level of the gold and dollar reserve and to the imminence of a seasonally favourable period for sterling, he will expedite measures to lower interest rates in the United Kingdom.

As regards short-term rates of interest, the hon. Member will have observed that Bank Rate has been reduced by 3 per cent. in the last nine months. Future policy in this field will remain flexible. As regards long-term rates, I have nothing to add to what I told the hon. Member on 2nd December.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that by previous standards a 4 per cent. Bank Rate is a high rate of interest and that nobody will believe that he wishes to reduce unemployment while that high rate of interest continues?

All I can assure the hon. Member is that policy will continue to he adjusted to the needs of the changing situation. As for opinions on the changing of rates, I leave it to the hon. Member to decide that matter for himself.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government intend to publish a White Paper on the European Free Trade Area negotiations.

As my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, told the House on 4th December, I have been considering this matter. I feel, however, that it would be difficult to publish a full and satisfactory White Paper at the present moment.

As the inimical clauses of the Rome Treaty are due to take effect in a few weeks' time, does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the need for a White Paper is urgent?

I understand the point, but the trouble is that the negotiations and the documents are by mutual understanding confidential, and the Government could not make a unilateral move to publish them. I will try to see whether I can do something about this.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that the main reason we were willing to acquiesce in postponing a debate on this subject was that we understood that it would be possible to issue a White Paper after 1st January but very difficult to issue one before that? Will he give an undertaking that we shall have a White Paper telling the House and the country as much as he can tell the House and the country in good time for the debate which we hope and intend to have after Christmas?

I share the right hon. Gentleman's desire to give the House the greatest information on this matter, but there is the difficulty of the documents concerned being confidential by international agreement. I will do my best in the near future to try to ensure that the maximum amount is made public.

If I send the right hon. Gentleman one of these confidential documents from the Continent which are floating about in this country, showing that he has misled the House this afternoon in the statement about the offer made by the Six, will he publish that in a White Paper?

I should he grateful to receive any document, but I should be extremely surprised if any document which the right hon. Gentleman sent me made the point which he thinks he could make.

Since up to now so much has been given to the public to discourage any hope of a settlement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any hopes of this matter being settled at the meeting next week?

These things can be settled if there is a general will to succeed in a settlement, but not otherwise.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to allow the transfer of annuities owned by a constituent of the hon. Member for Honiton, of which particulars have been supplied to him, to the Dominion of Canada so that he and his wife may now rejoin their family in Canada.

I am informed that my hon. Friend's constituent has already received from the Exchange Control authorities a full explanation of the facilities available to him whereby he could transfer to Canada the proceeds of his annuities.