asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what action has been taken to prevent the misuse of virement in the future; what action was taken after the figures given in the Air Services Appropriation Account as £2,684,000, was subsequently found inaccurate, the true figure being under £1,000,000; and what is the explanation of the misuse of virement and inaccuracies pointed out in paragraphs 4, 6, 9, 10, and 11 of the Second Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, 1957–58;

A Treasury Minute on the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, Session 1957–58, has been furnished to the Committee. I expect that the Committee, in accordance with usual practice, will shortly present the Minute to the House as an Appendix to one of its own Reports.

Is the Minister aware that, in the view of some of us who have studied these matters, the Treasury is not working in harmony with the Parliamentary control of expenditure? Will the Minister consult his right hon. Friend with a view to consulting the authorities of this House to see whether the Treasury are responsible for repudiating what are really the Standing Orders of this House? I wish to quote from the Second Report, which is mentioned in my Question, which says—

"transfers between Votes ought. in the interests of Parliamentary control, to be authorised, not by virement but by Supplementary Estimates"—

Order. I think that is enough.

I was just going to quote from—

The hon. Member cannot make a speech on this topic at Question Time. He will have to think of other hon. Members who have Questions later on the Order Paper.

I am not making a speech. I am asking a supplementary question—only one—on two Questions. I was directing the attention of the Minister to the Treasury repudiation of the Standing Orders of this House, as set out in the Report to which I want to draw attention.

We debated some of these matters on the Monk Resolutions last summer. I think it would be better if the hon. Gentleman would wait and see the Treasury Minute which has been sent to the Public Accounts Committee.

Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is great concern about this virement business, which really is a relic of a bygone day and gives the Service Departments a degree of freedom in spending—some may say wasting—money which is not given to the Civil Departments? In view of the quite monstrous Supplementary Estimates just presented to us, many of which could have been avoided by proper Government control, is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a wide feeling on both sides of the House—he has only to ask his hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) to confirm it—that it is time the whole subject was properly re-examined in the House as a whole in relation to the Reports of the Select Committee, not only on the narrower questions of virement, but of control of public expenditure generally?

The Treasury use of virement is done under an express statutory provision of this House in the Appropriation Act. I know that opinions differ on both sides of the House whether virement should still be used, should be relaxed, or used more strictly. There is quite a big division of opinion. We debated it last summer, and I think the House would wish to see the Treasury Minute before forming any further opinion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware that the yield from the 10 per cent. totalisator tax from the Coventry Greyhound Stadium for the years 1956, 1957, and 1958 was £40,996, £37,904, and £34,781, respectively; and to what extent this decline is symptomatic of the general financial position of greyhound racing taxation;

I am aware of the position at the Coventry Greyhound Stadium, but it is not typical: over the country as a whole, totalisator turnover and the yield of the 10 per cent. duty have not varied to any significant extent in the last three years.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there seems to be no reason why the position should be worse in Coventry than elsewhere? Do I understand from his Answer that the financial position of greyhound racing throughout the country is not deteriorating? As I have two Questions on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, might I further ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction caused by the fact that people who bet on the tote at greyhound stadiums are taxed whereas those who do so on the racecourse are not taxed?

The hon. Lady would not expect me to speculate as to the reasons for the decline in Coventry. As to the difference in the incidence of taxation on greyhound and horse racing, the hon. Lady will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that although the National Coal Board made no provisions for taxation for the years 1947, 1948, 1952 and 1957, over £19,500,000 have been reserved for taxation in other years; and why the Board's taxation liabilities have not yet been finally determined by the Inland Revenue for any year since the vesting date.

I cannot disclose information about the tax affairs of a particular concern.

If private industry copied nationalised industries and paid nothing towards the maintenance of the Welfare State, how much would have to be added, say, to taxation on beer and tobacco and to Purchase Tax?

Do not add anything to Purchase Tax.

If I accepted the premise of that question, I should be disclosing information about the tax affairs of a particular concern.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say how much of the expenditure on the Welfare State, not least on industrial injuries, is due to the fact that industries which had to be nationalised have left a scar of very heavy expenditure for many years to come?

I would ask the right hon. Member to put that question down.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received from persons and organisations for the earlier repayment of postwar credits; and how many for the repayment of post-war credits in cases of particular hardship.

About 1,000 during the past year. A separate count has not been kept of those asking for repayment in cases of particular hardship.

While appreciating that he cannot anticipate the Budget, will my hon. and learned Friend take account of the fact that there is obviously widespread feeling that the present powers under which post-war credits are paid are somewhat too rigid?

I shall draw the observations of my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the many cases of hardship arising from the postponement of postwar credits are now aggravated by rising unemployment; and whether, in view of this and of the present state of the national finances, he will now accelerate his review of the problem and devise a new formula for quicker repayment of post-war credits, including immediate repayment in all cases of hardship.

My right hon. Friend has noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

Is the Minister aware of the great resentment on this subject and, in view of the current relaxation on capital expenditure, does not the Minister think it is quite immoral to continue to withhold sums due to people who are in great distress and hardship, particularly as a result of the recent unemployment for which the Government are responsible?

I certainly cannot accept the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has put his supplementary question. I know that those who have post-war credits outstanding naturally desire to have them repaid, but I would point out that the hon. Gentleman's party failed to find any way of repaying them on the basis suggested.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of repaying post-war credits to those whose incomes are under £500, £750 and £1,000 a year, respectively.

I regret that I cannot give an estimate, because the necessary information is not available.

Whilst many people are hoping for a considerable reduction in Income Tax as a first priority in the coming Budget, will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that those who have been hardest hit by inflation do not pay a lot of tax? Would he not agree that this method is a good way of helping this section of the community?

All I can safely say is that will draw my hon. Friend's observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the state of the cotton textile industry, he is prepared to remove the Purchase Tax of 5 per cent. on clothing made with cotton textiles.

My right hon. Friend cannot anticipate his Budget decisions.

In view of the fact that it has been said from both sides of the House that it is beneficial to deal with Purchase Tax outside the Budget discussions, and in view of the deplorable state of the cotton industry and the fact that even the slight reductions which have already resulted from the withdrawal of the Yarn Agreement are said to have stimulated purchasing power, is not this at least one small step which even this Government could take straight away?

There are other Questions on the Order Paper about Purchase Tax changes in advance of the Budget. As to opinion in the House, I would remind the hon. Member that during debates on the Finance Bill only last year there was general agreement that Purchase Tax is not an operative factor on short-time working.

While we all recognise that the Chancellor, if not the President of the Board of Trade, cannot anticipate the Budget statement, would the Economic Secretary at any rate warn his right hon. Friend to avoid the gross blunders made by the then Chancellor—now the Lord Privy Seal—in 1955, when 'le refused to lift Purchase Tax on textiles, said in this House in the Financial Bill debates that it would be dishonest to do so, and then—realising that an Election was coming on—removed the tax? If the Chancellor is to do it, will he do it quickly?

My right hon. Friend is always grateful for the voluminous advice tendered by the right hon. Member.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to Purchase Tax revenue in 1957–58 at £494 million and his Budget estimate for the current year of Purchase Tax revenue at £491 million notwithstanding reductions in rates, what revised estimate for Purchase Tax revenue for 1958–59 he has now made consequent upon stimulated demand following the ending of hire-purchase restrictions and the credit squeeze.

As my right hon. Friend said on 25th November last, it is not the practice to publish any revision of the Budget estimates during the course of the financial year.

Has not my hon. Friend perceived that yesterday the Chancellor substantially abolished the Capital Issues Committee, as I have been pressing upon him in my advice during the last two years? Would he not now take even more apposite advice and abolish the present discriminatory system of Purchase Tax, put in its place a single fiat-rate of tax, non-discriminatory in incidence, and thereby directly help our export trade?

My right hon. Friend always pays great attention to advice received from hon. Members of this House.

Would he not pay greater attention to advice, apposite or otherwise, from his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) if once in a while the hon. Member went into the Division Lobby with us in support of what he is advocating?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that pre-war Great Britain dominated export markets for ladies' compacts, lipstick holders, powder bowls and similar accessories to cosmetics, whereas today export trade is dominated by Western Germany, and Great Britain's share has fallen to small proportions; what steps he has taken to investigate the bearing which the present 60 per cent. rate of Purchase Tax for such accessories on the home market has on the export trade; and what would be the cost to the Exchequer of reclassifying in Group 23 all receptacles for personal or domestic purposes instead of Group 31 as at present.

I would remind my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend has to consider not only export aspects but also the yield and the internal logic of the Purchase Tax structure. The information asked for in the last part of the Question is not available.

My hon. Friend has just said that the need for exports is paramount. Those are the words which he used. Is it not a fact that on cosmetics and the receptacles referred to in the Question a sum of only £6½ million is collected in Purchase Tax and that three or four times that sum of revenue from exports may be lost as a result of the penal Purchase Tax? Why will not my hon. Friend restore some equity to this position?

Articles exported through normal commercial channels are not normally subject to Purchase Tax.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the fishing tackle industry, which is largely a craft industry, is suffering a serious decline on account of the high rate of Purchase Tax levied on its products; and, in view of this, whether he will give sympathetic consideration to the reduction of Purchase Tax so levied.

Commercial fishing gear is not taxed, but sports fishing tackle, like other sports requisites is taxable at the standard rate of 30 per cent. My right hon. Friend will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind, but I must not anticipate his Budget decisions.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him to convey to his right hon. Friend the grave anxiety which exists at present in Redditch, a town which has been famous for manufacturing fishing tackle for some time, as to the future of this craft trade?

My right hon. Friend has received no representations from the trade that the industry is suffering a serious decline as a result of the tax, but he will take into account what my hon. Friend has just said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a horn regarded as a wind musical instrument is subject to Purchase Tax at 30 per cent. whereas a musical motor car horn of electrical type, or with hand rubber bulb for squeezing wind into the horn, does not attract Purchase Tax even if used occasionally for theatrical performances; what rate of tax is applicable to a hunting horn and to a child's toy trumpet; what particular considerations guide his decisions as to the rate of Purchase Tax applicable to particular horns; and to what extent he is influenced in his decision by the volume or by the melodious quality of noise produced.

On a point of order. Should not the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) declare an interest in this Question since he is always blowing his own trumpet?

Is an opprobrious comment of that kind from the other side of the House in order, in view of the legitimacy of the Question and the reference to musical instruments, notably French horns?

The two horns mentioned in the Question are a hunting horn and a child's toy trumpet. I do not know that either of those applies to the hon. Member for Kidderminster.

Perhaps I may now be allowed to reply to the Question. The answer is: Yes, Sir; 30 per cent.; the tax Schedule and common sense; while the answer to the last part is, not at all, but personally I rate quality above volume, even in Parliamentary Questions.

Is it not a fact that a motor horn makes a harsh, raucous and unmelodious noise? Having regard to the fact that a 30 per cent. Purchase Tax is placed on musical instruments, including a French horn, which produces melodious music and contributes to the arts and culture, why should my right hon. Friend the Chancellor be depressing the arts by this vicious impost and encouraging raucous noises by removing the instruments which produce them from the Purchase Tax Schedule? Is there any equity in that position?

Is it not a fact that the Treasury is on the horns of a dilemma?

On a point of order. I have not had an answer to my supplementary question.

I cannot help that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the desirability of making an announcement on Purchase Tax prior to his Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that retailers of household utensils, and similar goods, are now engaged in reducing stocks to a minimum through uncertainty as to the Government's intentions concerning Purchase Tax on such articles; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement to clarify the position.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to avoid the uncertainty in trade and industry arising from speculation about Purchase Tax changes.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) and other hon. Members on Thursday, 29th January.

That reply refers to another reply given to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) on 26th January, and that reply was ambiguous; it did not make clear whether the Chancellor was saying that there would be no statement before the Budget or that he might or might not make a statement before the Budget. Is not the hon. Member aware that it would save himself, the House and the Official Reporters a great deal of work if we could eliminate from the Order Paper all Questions on this matter by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)?

The answer was perfectly clear. My right hon. Friend said that he had no statement to make and added that he must be free to consider the possibility of such changes in the context of his Budget.

Is there not precedent for the Chancellor relieving the uncertainty in business on these matters before the Budget? In view of the fact that traders have come to expect some clarification of the position before the Budget, is there any special reason why the Chancellor cannot give some indication, at least in particular instances? I make special reference to the point made in my Question about household utensils, in view of the great difficulties arising in many of the small shops.

There are also very good precedents for not making a statement about Purchase Tax in advance of the Budget, and my right hon. Friend has had regard to those precedents.

Is the Minister not aware that when the Home Secretary was Chancellor of the Exchequer he made a statement on his Purchase Tax intentions in February and then said that he considered it a more honest and honourable way of informing the country? Would he not urge the present Chancellor to follow that precedent of honesty and honour?

The hon. Member's Question referred to speculation. It is therefore appropriate to point out that while the intentions were honest and honourable, as he said, the statement then made did not, in fact, remove speculation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to make a statement about the nature of the discussions which he has had recently with the motor industry about Purchase Tax on motor cars and particularly on commercial vehicles chassis.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend cannot comment on any representations which he may receive at this time of year.

I am referring particularly to chassis. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it was a pledge given by the Chancellor last year to meet the industry this winter, which probably avoided an all-party revolt on the issue during the passage of the Finance Bill? Would he be good enough to pass on to his right hon. Friend the suggestion that it would not be easy to get out of a revolt this year if he has nothing to offer in the Budget?

That is quite another matter. The fact is that I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish my right hon. Friend to break the confidentiality of this particular meeting.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he has approved arrangements between manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers to forestall changes in Purchase Tax rates which may be made in this year's Budget; and if he will readily allow the extension of such loss-sharing arrangements, designed to maintain the flow of goods from factories to shops during this period of uncertainty.

I take it my hon. Friend has in mind "sale or return" and similar arrangements. These do not require my right hon. Friend's approval. The question whether a particular arrangement succeeds in the object of deferring the tax charge is one of law.

I had not in mind that arrangement. Will my hon. Friend inquire of the President of the Board of Trade about this current loss-sharing arrangement by which manufacturers are to bear part of the loss which would otherwise fall on retailers on stocks which may be subject to Purchase Tax reduction?

Yes, Sir, I will certainly make inquiries, but I should like to remind my hon. Friend that the deferment of the tax charge, if it is to succeed, is a matter for the law.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of the national wages and salaries, respectively, for 1951; and what are the estimated corresponding figures for 1958.

In 1951, £5,095 million was paid out in wages and £2,580 million in salaries. For the year 1957, £7,720 million was paid out in wages and £4,060 million in salaries. Corresponding figures are not yet available for the year 1958, but in the first nine months of 1958 the combined wage and salary bill amounted to £9,095 million, representing an increase of 4 per cent. on the corresponding period of 1957.

May I ask two questions? When does my hon. Friend expect the final figure to be ready? Would he not agree that the figures he has already show that the working man of this country is far better off under the Tories than he was under the Socialists?

I regret that I cannot say at present when the full figures for 1958 will be available.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion, approximately, of Great Britain's industrial production must be exported to pay for the 40 per cent. of our food requirements and the 100 per cent. raw materials that must be imported; and what additional steps he proposes to take to make the nation realise the importance of exports and the difficulties of maintaining them.

In order to pay for our imports and meet other commitments we need to export roughly 30 per cent. of the output of manufacturing industry. The export trade remains of paramount importance, and I think this is generally realised. My right hon. Friend has no additional steps in mind, but he is always ready to receive suggestions.

In view of this immensely impressive figure of 30 per cent. of our products which have to be exported to keep us afloat, does not my hon. Friend think it is a mean fraud for the Opposition to tell the people of this country that they can guarantee full employment when they cannot make the foreigner buy British?

Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to keep in mind that it may be more profitable for this country in the long run to invest a great deal more in this country and a little less abroad?

I think it most important that we should invest abroad as well as at home.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the houses in Northern Ireland, vested in the Irish Sailors' and Soldiers' Land Trust, have been sold to ex-Service men tenants and to the widows of ex-Service men to the most recent convenient date for computation; and at what average price.

The sale of houses by the Irish Sailors' and Soldiers' Land Trust is not a matter for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible and I would suggest that the hon. Member should make inquiry of the Trust.

Is the Minister aware that when tenants made inquiries of the council they had to wait for four-and-a half months for a reply, that similar houses in the Irish Free State are subject to a court of appeal ruling, being let rent-free to tenants, and that there is great distress and anxiety amongst these tenants? As the Treasury houses the Irish Land Trust, is there not such a responsibility that the Chancellor might well receive a deputation on this matter?

No. I have already stated that the Chancellor has no responsibility. I suggest that the hon. Member's question should be directed to the Trust.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the magnitude of the cash loss suffered by those who accepted the invitation of the Governments of the day to invest in 1932 3½ per cent. War Loan and in 1946 2½ per cent. Treasury Stock, and since the reputation of Government stocks is at stake, if he will give urgent consideration to the possibility of an early announcement assigning redemption or conversion dates.

No, Sir. I cannot accept the suggestion that the reputation of Government stocks is at stake. The price of these stocks is, of course, bound to fluctuate with the changes in the long-term rate of interest, but the income remains unchanged. Quite apart from the propriety of varying the terms in favour of the investor and at the taxpayer's expense, it would be impossible to find a way of doing so that would be workable and fair to all concerned.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that we are not asking him to vary the terms? We are merely asking that the Government should accept the obligations which they accepted at the time, when they said that the repayment date would be 1952 or later. How much later?

That is the question.

May I have an answer to that question?

The Minister is getting into trouble today.

There is nothing unusual in that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is now the total cost of the Suez operations, taking into account military expenditure, loss of the British base, our share of clearing the canal, the higher cost of petrol, repayment of loans from the International Money Fund and the Export-Import Bank of America, and the new agreement with the United Arab Republic.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 3rd February to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis).

As the complete figures have not yet been disclosed, will the Minister ensure that before the nation declares judgment at a General Election the full facts are laid before them?

The fullest possible facts have already been made public.

If the hon. Member is incapable of adding up the figures, will he take it that people who can add up, having allowed for whatever is the cost of reparations under the United Arab Republic financial agreement, and having allowed for the heavy borrowing to maintain sterling in December, 1956, put the figure at no less than £500 million? In view of statements by hon. Members opposite about the groundnuts scheme, will he see that the country can compare the two figures and put them into perspective?

I will take note of the points the right hon. Gentleman has raised.

When drawing up these figures of the cost of the Suez operation, will my hon. Friend give an indication to the country of how much of this cost was directly attributable to the scandalous behaviour of the Opposition?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, as it is possible for foreign companies to take over a controlling interest or obtain undue influence in British companies by ordinary Stock Exchange transactions, he will take steps to modify the results of such activities on occasions when they are not in Great Britain's economic interests.

No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 29th January to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government may be under some electoral temptation on these matters in the future? Does he appreciate that the improvement in the last monthly figures of the gold and dollar reserve was largely due to dollars crossing the Atlantic for the British Aluminium take-over?

The improvement was due to a number of factors, not least of which was the decision to merge the sterling rates.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the biggest single improvement in any month in the gold and dollar figures since the last election was the sale by the present Prime Minister of the Trinidad Oil Company, and in view of that precedent, which has obviously not been repudiated by the Government, will he make it quite plain that the Treasury will act to prevent dollars crossing the Atlantic for the purpose of purchasing major British companies in this country?

Most certainly not.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the present position regarding the Free Trade Area, the Common Market, and Great Britain's position in regard to them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to future trade relations with the European Economic Community.

Our object is first to find a settlement, acceptable to the 0.E.E.C., of the immediate problems caused by the entry into operation of the Treaty of Rome. But Her Majesty's Government continue to attach great importance to settlement of the long-term problem and will remain in close touch with other European Governments to this end.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the present position is that negotiations are at the moment broken off altogether, or whether Her Majesty's Government are actually formulating proposals, or whether they are awaiting proposals to be formulated by the Common Market countries for the association of this country with the Common Market later in the year?

Negotiations were certainly not broken off; they were suspended. It is difficult to deal with this generally in question and answer. I understand that the House may have an opportunity in the near future of discussing these matters more fully.

While appreciating the difficulties of the Government in answering this, has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of reports of the more favourable attitude on the part of the Common Market countries for closer association with Great Britain, and does not he think it now time for more intensive negotiations rather than this posture of calm irresolution which the Government have adopted?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "calm irresolution". The Government attach the greatest importance to a solution of this problem. Everyone has always been in favour of closer association, but the difficulty has been to find the terms to achieve it.

Would the right hon. Gentleman try to keep the situation fluid so far as the amalgamation of civil lines is concerned, because if the civil air lines of the Common Market countries are amalgamated to form one unit it will be rather difficult to break into it later on?

That is not really a question for me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the number of home accidents caused by children playing with matches, he will abolish or reduce the Customs duty on all mechanical lighters.

The hon. Lady would not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that on the death of her husband a mother, with or without a family, loses the £250 Income Tax allowance, and is treated as a single person for Income Tax purposes; and if he will abolish this practice.

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend does not see his way to propose the adoption of the hon. Lady's suggestion.

Would the Financial Secretary intimate to his right hon. Friend, who may not know, that the widow is having a very hard struggle when she is left with a mortgage on her house, and that even if she goes to work she is penalised by having her entire 50s. widow's pension taken away from her by his other right hon. Friend? Would not his two right hon. Friends get together to try to do something for the widows of this country?

I know that there are many widows suffering considerable hardship, and in any case their lot is one which must command sympathy. This is, however, a question of fiscal law, and successive Governments have not been able to accept the suggestion of the hon. Lady, for the simple reason that the married person's allowance is higher than the single person's allowance because it is an allowance on two peoples' incomes. With regard to the second part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, she will, of course, be aware that the earnings rule has been relaxed in favour of widows who go out to work.

May I ask why it was that on Question No. 24 the Economic Secretary could not anticipate the Budget statement yet on Question No. 25, equally a Budget matter and requiring legislation, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury turned it down flat, without even saying that the Chancellor would give consideration to it between now and the Budget?

I should have made it plain that I was speaking with my right hon. Friend's authority.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are 124 Questions on the Order Paper today. We have reached No. 25. Yesterday you were in the same predicament and referred to the fact that there were so many supplementary questions asked that it was difficult to get on. Today the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has asked a supplementary question on practically every Question raised. May I ask whether there is any way by which we can hope to reach the end of Questions today?

That is beyond my power.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the hardship caused to widows, spinsters and married women living apart from their husbands between the ages of 60 to 65 years, who pay Income Tax on their small incomes on amounts not exceeding £275 a year; and whether he will consider giving tax exemption at 60 years of age as will be the case on their attaining the age of 65 years.

I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

I am very much obliged to the Financial Secretary, but will he bear in mind that this point was contained in an Amendment to the Finance Bill, but was not called? Will he also bear in mind that there is very great hardship when spinsters and others, drawing only £2 10s. a week pension, and having a small sum from their employer—an income of £3 2s. 6d. in all—are expected to pay tax on £40 of their income?

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the difficulty here is that a husband can qualify for age exemption or age relief by virtue of his wife's age as well as of his own; and the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income endorsed the present arrangement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total public capital investment in the electricity industry and on roads, respectively, since 1945, to the latest convenient date.

From 1948 to 1957 inclusive, public investment in the electricity industry and on roads totalled £1,819 million and £182 million, respectively. I regret that comparable figures are not available for the years 1945–47.

In view of the tremendous slice of the national public expenditure taken by the nationalised electricity industry—some ten times that spent on roads—would my hon. Friend see that a fair balance is kept between these two important public investments?

The investment on new roads has been restricted in the past in favour of other more urgent investment. I am sure my hon. Friend knows full well the high level of investment taking place now and for future years in our roads programme.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total financial assistance given to the 16 projects which he has approved under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1958.

Financial assistance to a total of £378,250 has been offered for the sixteen projects.

Since Her Majesty's Government attached so much importance to the 1958 Act in regard to the effect that it would have on absorbing the unemployed, does the hon. Gentleman think that a miserly expenditure of that kind is going to make any impact whatsoever on the growing unemployment problem, and does not he think that he ought to begin to tackle the job so that those now walking the streets seeking jobs may be given a little help?

A total of over a third of a million pounds on this one form of assistance in a few months is quite a substantial achievement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent applications have been made by employers for assistance under the Distribution of Industries (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, since the passing of the Act.

A total of 74 firm and eligible applications have been made, of which 16 have so far been approved.

That reply means that a very small number of the total number of applications has been approved. Does not that suggest that it will take a long time before the effect of this Act will have any impression at all on the districts for which it is intended?

No, we are doing rather well. Of 74 applications, 33 are still under examination and only 25 have been rejected.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications were lodged in 1958 with the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee by firms operating in Greenock; how many have been approved; and what amount of public money has been involved.

Three firm and eligible applications were lodged with the Committee in 1958. Of these, one involving £75,000 has been approved.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee received the application from the Inchgreen Investigating Company, Limited, for financial assistance in the construction of the proposed Clyde graving dock at Greenock; and if he will give a favourable decision at an early date.

A formal application for financial assistance for the construction of this dry dock was received by the Committee on 29th December, 1958. The need for an early decision is fully appreciated, but I cannot forecast what that decision may be.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that this much-needed project for the Clydeside has been hanging fire for 12 years and that it is perfectly clear that without State assistance it will never be realised? Is he further aware that since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement almost a year ago unemployment on the Clydeside has risen appreciably, and that this is just the kind of thing to help the unemployment position there?

We are fully aware of the urgency of the matter, but we only received the formal application less than 12 weeks ago, and this is a big and complicated scheme which must be carefully studied and considered before a decision is reached.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency contributed towards the cost of a survey of public opinion concerning national ownership of industry which was made by the British Market Research Bureau.

I am informed that none of the subsidiaries of the Iron and Steel holding and Realisation Agency has contributed towards the cost of the survey in question.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that that wholly satisfactory Answer is just what I expected. Would he not now agree that the nation derives great benefit from the fact that the great firm of Richard Thomas and Baldwins remains in public ownership, selling its tinplate in all the markets of the world without the need to have recourse to "phoney" market surveys or dabbling in party politics?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency gave its approval to subscriptions by any of the steel companies in which it holds prior charge securities to the cost of a survey of public opinion concerning the public ownership of industry which was made by the British Market Research Bureau.

The Agency's approval was neither sought nor required.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several months have now passed since I drew attention to the undesirability of the practice of firms in which no less than £172 million of public money are invested indulging in political activities? Are we to assume from his Answer that he took no steps whatever to warn them about the undesirability of the practice? If so, are we to conclude that the Government connived at this "phoney" market research?

The fact remains that the holding of fixed-interest securities in a company does not entitle the holder generally to interfere in matters such as this.

We are well aware that that is the legal position, but does he not think that the Government's moral position—and honour—is involved?

We think that our moral position involves the necessity of complying with company legislation and practice generally.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims he has received from steel companies during the past year for the exemption from tax of sums paid out for a campaign against steel nationalisation; and what is the total sum involved.

No such claims have been notified to the Head Office of the Inland Revenue; but the accounts received during 1958 have related to a period before the start of the "campaign" to which the hon. Member refers. I cannot, in any case, undertake to give any information about the affairs of individual taxpayers, or about such a narrow group as would amount to disclosure of the affairs of individuals in that group.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that company accounts covering the period of this campaign must now have been submitted? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will tell hon. Members why. It is because the campaign started before the end of the last accounting period. Is it not clear that unless this expenditure has been separately stated in those accounts it must have been merged with commercial advertising and thus have escaped Income Tax?

I am certainly not going to discuss the tax affairs of any individual concern. I would merely remind the hon. Gentleman that the accounting period for the major steel companies goes up to September.

Exactly.

Does not the Financial Secretary realise that a point of general administrative policy and principle is involved in this? Does he think it right that firms that are spending substantial sums on political activity representing their class interests should be able to get Income Tax relief and thereby get subsidisation from the Treasury for their class and political campaign at the expense of the other taxpayers? Will he not tell the House which are the firms that are doing that sort of thing?

I will be answering Question 40 about the extent to which political activities can be claimed as an expense against taxable income, but I should make it plain that, in general, expenses incurred in political activities are not deductible. The only expenses that can be deducted are those that are wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of the trade.

In those circumstances, are we to conclude from what the Financial Secretary has said that the firms will not get Income Tax relief in respect of this expenditure?

No, Sir. This is a matter of the law. The law imposes a strict test, and one that was unanimously endorsed by both the Royal Commission and the Millard Tucker Committee. The test is to show that the expense was not of a capital nature and was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade. If that test is satisfied it is a deductible expense.

In view of the allegations about the nature of the research referred to, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that today the Chairman of the Market Research Society has clearly stated that, from information volunteered to him, this survey is professionally within the long-established rules of the Market Research Society; and that he has further stated that if the General Secretary of the Labour Party does not welcome this assurance, he must be more anxious to generate—rather than to express—anxiety and alarm?

Yes, Sir, I have seen the report.

If it is in order to refer to this particular market survey in a supplementary question, is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the man who at great expense sponsored the survey himself stated at the weekend that he was holding on to the names for whatever purposes he considered fit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—which could include electoral purposes and possible industrial victimisation? Is he aware that for our part we welcome the statement of the market research authorities that the man who sponsored the survey was wrong?

The right hon. Gentleman always keeps his ear so close to the ground that I suppose he is bound to get it full of dirt.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will ensure, by regulation or otherwise, that outlays of business firms for the purpose of political canvasses and political propaganda as distinct from expenditure on market research for sales and other trade purposes are not allowed to rank as business expenses in the computation of liability for Income Tax and Profits Tax.

Expenditure by a trader directed to political ends and not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of his trade is not allowable in computing taxable profits.

I welcome the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that, as we suspected, there was dirt in this business, but will he go into this case very carefully, bearing in mind that we are not concerned with genuine market research activities designed to promote trade, sales, exports and so forth? Will he make sure that, if the regulations are not clear, new regulations or, if necessary, new legislation will be introduced to deal with this matter and prevent these things from being done at the taxpayers' expense?

The present law is eminently reasonable and equitable. All Members of the House will agree, for example, that if there were a United Kingdom company operating abroad and subjected to an untruthful and unscrupulous campaign designed towards the expropriation of its assets it should be able to take steps to answer that campaign, and the expense of those steps should be deductible from its taxable profits.

Since my Question did not relate either to Tate & Lyle or to any campaign to answer threats of expropriation of assets but related to an activity which, on the authority of the sponsor, was purely directed to ascertaining public opinion on certain facts, which in any case are published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, will the hon. and learned Gentleman say what was the relevance of his answer?

Perhaps I should make plain that in any case of a political nature it is the practice of the Inland Revenue, when in any doubt, to challenge the claim for a deduction and to leave it to the taxpayer to make his case on appeal.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My Question No. 68 is on all fours with Question No. 40. Why was the usual practice not adopted of answering both together today? Was it to deprive me of a supplementary?

I do not think there is any sinister intent, I was given no notice that they would be answered together.

Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) was herself personally subjected to this investigation and could, therefore, contribute something in her supplementary question?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount collected by Stamp Duty on Stock Exchange transactions.

About £30 million in the current year.

Without for one moment asking the Financial Secretary to anticipate anything at all, I should like his assurance that he will bear in mind that some reduction on this duty on small share transactions would do a great deal to spread the ownership of shares more widely.

I will draw the hon. Gentleman's observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what facilities Her Majesty's Mint have given to German banking firms in connection with the issue of ducats and other gold coins bearing a portrait of Her Majesty.

None, Sir. I should add that the pieces in question are medals and not ducats.

Since it was stated in The Times that the German banks themselves called them ""—I put the word "ducats" in inverted commas in the Question as submitted—and since it was further stated that the Mint had co-operated by supplying facsimiles for this purpose, is the hon. Gentleman aware that his assurance that no help has been given, denying the Press statements, will be very well received, particularly since this is part of a series including coins, ducats or medals—whatever they may be—incorporating pictures of Hitler, Mussolini and others?

I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have realised that it is always a rather hazardous occupation to copy out one's Questions from columns in the newspapers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Even from The Times?"] Yes, even from The Times. However, I shall be glad to put the right hon. Gentleman's mind at rest by telling him that, in response to a request, the Royal Mint gave some help to the Munich Mint, and not the German banking firms with regard to the design of a portrait medal.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated expenditure for 1958–59 over the whole field of the administration of justice.

The net cost to the Exchequer in 1958–59 of magistrates' courts, county courts, and the superior courts in England and Wales, and the corresponding Scottish courts, will be between £5 million and £51 million.

Will my lion. Friend add to that all the cost of the Home Office on the administration of the law, apart from the items he has dealt with, that is to say, including the prisons, prisoners, legal defence, covering a very wide field? When he gives me that information, will he bear in mind that I am interested in people who do not break the law, and I wish to know whether there will be any money available for those who live on small fixed incomes? Further, will he say whether he is aware that I want a free chiropody service for old-age pensioners rather than more for prisoners?

If my hon. Friend wants the figure covering the whole field of crime and the prevention of crime, I can tell her that the total net cost to the Exchequer on police, prisons, probation, approved schools and so forth, as well as the courts, is about £75 million. In answer to the second part of her supplementary, I must say that I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement. The answer to the third part of her supplementary question is that I was aware of her views.

asked the Prime Minister what further consultations he has had with President Eisenhower about the latter's proposal for a treaty on the legal status of Antarctic territories.

Consultations about President Eisenhower's proposal concerning Antarctica have been taking place through normal diplomatic channels. The proposal did not envisage any provision relating to the legal status of Antarctic territories, except that this should remain unchanged for the duration of the treaty.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement about the recently concluded negotiations on the United Kingdom-Euratom Agreement; why it has been so long delayed; and to what extent this will enable British manufacturers of atomic power stations to compete fairly with the Americans in the Euratom market.

The Agreement was signed yesterday and the text was published as a White Paper. Having regard to the nature of the questions involved. I do not think that the negotiations were unduly prolonged.

Does not the Prime Minister realise that the Americans have already made great inroads into Euratom, in that they have poured in millions of dollars and have also imported into Euratom subsidised nuclear fuels? Is not the complacent and rather miserable attitude of the Government towards our own atomic energy industry strangling it at birth? What are the prospects within this agreement of a Ministerial Committee emerging whereby we can go from this form of co-operation to a closer association with Euratom?

In answer to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, of course the position of the Americans is quite different from ours. Owing to the low cost of generating electricity in the United States from their natural resources, they are, of course, not so advanced in this matter as we are. In answer to the last part of the supplementary question, I have made it clear in my discussions, as has my right hon. Friend, that while the first stage is to consider this matter further, I am hopeful that some Ministerial investigation can be made. On the other hand, we have to consult our colleagues in the rest of the O.E.E.C. countries, and that is why we did not make a statement yesterday.

Whilst it may very well be true that we are much further forward in this sphere than the Americans, is the Prime Minister aware that not only are the Americans making great inroads, but they have, in fact, secured far more contracts for atomic power stations on the Continent of Europe than we have and that we are unlikely to secure more because the Americans are able to give the first year's fuel free of charge? Does the right hon. Gentleman regard that as fair competition, and are we able to stand up to that sort of thing?

That does make difficulties for us, but this is an expanding field. In addition to the Euratom Agreement, we have already made separate agreements with individual countries, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, this has emerged into an arrangement for one of the Euratom countries where a British plant is to be erected in Italy.