asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as old-age pensioners have received no direct financial benefit from his Budget, he will include in the draft Finance Bill provisions abolishing the charge on prescriptions.

No, Sir. If old-age pensioners are in need, and satisfy the conditions for assistance the prescription charge can already be refunded to them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had letters from many old-age pensioners in Coventry, one of which says:

"Failing health is attendant upon old age and therefore prescriptions are a heavy toll upon our meagre budget. Surely 2d. off beer is no help for the sick and aged."

Is the Chancellor further aware that old people on National Assistance find it very difficult to satisfy the requirements for a refund, and would he not look at the matter again?.

If there is any administrative difficulty, I am sure that if the hon. Lady puts down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health he will give her the information she requires.

But is not the Chancellor aware that these vicious charges were imposed by the present Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was facing, as he said, a very serious economic crisis? Since we are supposed to be more prosperous now, ought not these charges and impositions to be the first to be removed? Is the right hon. Gentleman not further aware that this operates very unfairly as between different types of sick people, as some degrees of chronic illness require far more prescriptions per month than do others?.

I am sure, again, that any question about the details of the charge should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health..

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as old-age pensioners have received no direct financial benefit from his Budget, he will include in the draft Finance Bill provisions reducing for them the cost of a radio and television licence.

No, Sir. This would not be practicable, nor has selective relief from indirect taxation been found a satisfactory way of relieving hardship.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that it would cost £26 million in a full financial year to give the old-age pensioners another 2s. a week? Would it not be correct to state that he could do that, abolish prescription charges and reduce the cost of television and radio licences for the same amount as he conceded on beer, namely, £36 million?

No doubt all the items to which the hon. Lady has referred will be mentioned in our discussions on the Finance Bill.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that old-age pensioners are obliged to him for abolishing the Purchase Tax on replacement tubes for their television sets?

And is not the Chancellor further aware that we moved an Amendment to last year's Finance Bill to do just that but that he and his hon. and gallant Friend voted against it?

What is possible in some circumstances is not necessarily possible in others.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the progress made since 1954 towards doubling the standard of living by 1979.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual percentage increase in industrial production, from 1954, which was necessary to reach the Government's target of doubling the standard of living by 1979, the cumulative percentage increase required from 1954 to 1959, and the actual percentage increase achieved from 1954 to the latest available date.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the progress made since 1954 towards doubling the standard of living by 1979.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the progress made since 1954 towards doubling the standard of living by 1979

Between 1954 and 1958 industrial production per head has risen by an average of 1·1 per cent. per annum. I cannot compute what percentage increase of industrial production would be necessary to reach the target of doubling the standard of living in 25 years, as there are other factors involved.

The average annual increase in consumption per head over the four year period has been 1·8 per cent.

Probably the best statistical definition of the standard of living is the level of real personal disposable income per head. Between 1954 and 1958 this has risen by 2·7 per cent. per annum, which is very nearly at the level of 2·8 per cent. per annum which would be required as an average to produce a doubling in 25 years. The difference between this figure of 2·7 per cent. and the 1·8 per cent. for consumption is accounted for by the very large increase in personal saving which took place between 1954 and 1958.

Over this short period, on these facts I would regard progress to date as reasonably satisfactory, particularly as national investment has been running at very high levels.

Although I suppose it possible that a few Socialist speakers may try to "crab" the progress made, is my right hon. Friend aware that he should be warmly congratulated on both sides of the House? He has not, however, made any reference to the increase in such amenities as television and motor cars. Will he say something about those?

I have not the figures with me, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a Question I will certainly be glad to give him the information. It would, I think, reflect a steady increase in the standard of living.

Even if the Chancellor cannot find anyone to do his sums for him, have not statisticians generally agreed that an increase in industrial production of something rather less than 3 per cent. compound is required to achieve this particular target? Is not the figure of 1·1 per cent., as a result of the virtual stagnation for the last three years, a very disappointing contribution towards the target to which the right hon. Gentleman refers? Further, would he not accept that in his figures of disposable income per head there has been this very remarkable windfall gain in terms of trade which he or any other Chancellor cannot count on year after year?

I am here dealing with facts, and the facts which I have given show quite conclusively that the standard of living, measured by what is the best measure of the standard of living—and the right hon. Gentleman will find it extremely difficult to quarrel with it—real personal disposable income, has risen by 2·7 per cent. on the average each year over this period.

As the Chancellor is dealing with facts, if the alleged extra income has not come from more production, will he tell us from where it has come?

It has arisen in a great number of ways. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman that information now. As he knows, a host of things come into the assessment of the standard of living. This is a measurement of what is the final result when all the factors have been taken into account.

As the Board of Trade Index of Food Prices has risen from 232 to 275 since 1954, is it more more likely that if the Government should unfortunately remain in office it will be the cost of living that will have doubled by 1974?

I do not think that any hon. Gentleman opposite would be very wise in raising questions affecting the cost of living.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that if hon. Members opposite were in power and had their way they would so inflate the economy that they would run us into a balance of payments crisis?

I think that that consequence would be quite unavoidable.

Can the Chancellor give us one other source from which this income has come other than increased production?

One is additional production other than industrial production.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent in company accounts submitted to the Inland Revenue for the year ended October, 1958, anti-Labour or anti-nationalisation advertisements have been stated separately from other expenditure.

This information is not available.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the steel companies started their campaign in January, 1958, yet the Economic Secretary told me in February that no claims had yet been made? The Chancellor says that no information is available. Has this expenditure been separately stated or not? If not, does it not mean that the Income Tax authorities are being deliberately deceitful?

This matter has been very well explained by my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary on a number of occasions. This kind of information is not centralised at the headquarters of the Inland Revenue, but my hon. and learned Friend has explained very carefully that the taxpayer makes his return of income and the inspector makes such inquiries and asks such questions as are relevant. That is the practice which will be and is being carried out in the kind of case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Is it not correct that this information is not imparted to shareholders at all? Will the Chancellor consider an amendment of the Companies Act to require information of this kind to be given to them, because the present position is that they have no opportunity of either contracting in or contracting out of what is in fact a political levy?

If the shareholders are dissatisfied or feel that they are not receiving as much information as they should, the remedy is in their hands.

They know they are not receiving it.

If they feel that they would like some more information they can ask their management to provide it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there is current evasion by the device of setting off expenditure on advertising campaigns attacking public ownership of the Inland Revenue Department's ruling that chargeable expenditure must be wholly for the purposes of a company's trade; and what steps he is taking to prevent such evasion.

I know of nothing which would support the hon. Member's allegation, but inquiries as to such expenditure would be made in suitable cases.

Is the Chancellor aware that the Road Haulage Association has stated that £100,000 is being spent on such a campaign and that it will be deducted from company profits? Is it not intolerable that the Government will not tell Parliament or the people whether this is allowable or not?

The Government will not provide that information because it is not the job of the Government to do so. I again tell the hon. Member that I can rely on the inspectors of the Inland Revenue to make all proper inquiries in all relevant cases.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue is obtained by the Purchase Tax on deep sea fishermen's protective clothing.

I regret that this information is not available.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman's Department analyse the Purchase Tax receipts? Otherwise, how does he know whether a particular Purchase Tax is remunerative or not? May it not be that the cost of collecting the Purchase Tax on deep sea fishermen's oilskins and sea boots is far greater than the revenue which the right hon. Gentleman receives from the tax? Will he not consider abolishing this Purchase Tax?

I could not possibly carry out the kind of analysis which the hon. Gentleman has indicated. A vast staff would be required.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the tenth issue of National Savings Certificates, maximum holding 1,000 certificates, face value £750, was initiated; how many net have been bought; and in what total value.

The tenth issue of National Savings certificates was introduced on 1st August, 1956, with a maximum holding of 600 units costing £450. This was increased to 1,000 units costing £750 on 1st May, 1958. Total sales up to the end of April, 1958, were £518 million, or 691 million units, and a further £361 million, or 481 million units, have been sold since 1st May last. I cannot give figures of net sales of this issue, since the figures of repayments do not distinguish between the various issues. Total repayments of all issues over the period were £665 million.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the substantial tax reliefs which he announced a couple of weeks ago were made possible largely by the phenomenal record of the National Savings Movement? As so many people today already hold the maximum number of certificates permissible under the tenth issue, will he consider either an extension of the maximum number of certificates or an eleventh issue on appropriate terms at an early date?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the contribution which the National Savings Movement has made to strengthening the economy. I would like to say how greatly I rely on their efforts in the future to continue to make a useful contribution to our national resources. I am grateful for the views which my hon. Friend has expressed.

In answer to my hon. Friend's second point, I have the question of the ceiling as well as the terms of National Savings issues continually under consideration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations now require the foreign travel allowance to be maintained at £100 per adult person per annum; when this figure was introduced; and whether he will raise it to £250 per adult person in good time for summer holidays oversea.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the improved balance of payments position, he will consider doubling the basic foreign travel allowance to all countries except the dollar area.

The basic travel allowance has been £100 a year since November, 1954, for travel to non-dollar countries, and since June, 1957, for travel to the dollar area. I am keeping the question of an increase in this allowance under review, but I have no statement to make at present.

While recognising that in the overwhelming majority of cases £100 per head per annum is adequate, will my right hon. Friend have regard to the fact that British travellers overseas suffer considerable indignity as a result of these restrictions compared with, for example, a West German who has no restrictions upon him, whether he travels as a businessman or otherwise? As it is damaging to national reputation and trade that the West German should be in a better position than ourselves, will not my right hon. Friend consider the matter from that point of view?

I think my hon. Friend is exaggerating, if he will permit me to say so. I cannot think that British travellers are suffering anything that could be reasonably described as an indignity.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if the basic travel allowance were increased there would probably be fewer demands on his Department for the businessman's allowance?

I will bear that relevant point in mind, but there are a number of other commitments which I must bear in mind at the same time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that only a very small, privileged handful of people can afford holidays abroad at the rate of £250 per person?

I will bear that point in mind, also, among other things.

Is not the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) making an unfair imputation against businessmen when he suggests that they go on holidays disguised as business trips?

I do not think that that was what my hon. Friend meant to indicate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the Scandinavian travel allowance is still maintained at £250 per adult person per annum compared with £100 elsewhere, oversea; what were the origins of this contradistinction; and if he will now give to British travellers oversea. to other countries using dead-soft foreign currencies, treatment similar to that given to travellers to countries using the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish kroner, respectively.

The Uniscan Declaration of January. 1950, provided for the removal of restrictions on current payments between the four countries concerned, and this provision involves virtual freedom for travel expenditure. I do not know what my hon. Friend means by other countries using dead soft foreign currencies"

I am sorry if my right hon. Friend has not followed the purport of the Question. but would he not agree that this special dispensation for Scanclinavian currencies was made because they were at the time "dead-soft"? As today there are many European currencies which are as soft, if not softer, including the Italian lire, the Spanish peseta and the Portuguese escudo, would not my right hon. Friend end the contradistinction referred to in this Question and give £250 to anyone to travel anywhere in Europe?

I do not think that the logic of my hon. Friend is impeccable in this case. I think that the conception of hard and soft currencies is now largely outdated.

Then we ought to scrap it.

I shall not say whether they are all soft or all hard, but the distinction to draw between the two is not so easy as that.

Give the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) his allowance and let him go.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of applicants for foreign travel basic allowances do not apply for the full amount of £100 to which they are entitled.

I regret that this figure is not available.

If, as I am informed, a great number of people apply for very much less than £100, would that not lend additional point to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) for increasing the amount for those who need more?

Yes, I think that it would be a relevant factor in considering the matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the publicly expressed statement by the Federal German Minister of Economics that the British proposals for a Free Trade area are right, he will indicate what steps Her Majesty's Government are now proposing to take to reopen negotiations with the Common Market nations.

I cannot usefully add to the answers which I gave the right hon. Member on 26th March.

Has the attention of the Paymaster-General been called to the remarks, reported in The Times, of Professor Erhard that we should have the courage to go into the problem of the Free Trade Area whether today or tomorrow? Does not that seem to be an invitation from a leading member of the German Federal Government and should not Her Majesty's Government take this offer up?

Professor Erhard always had a clear point of view on these matters, and I think that it is important he should discuss them with his colleagues in The Six in the first instance.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the expression, "below the line expenditure," was first used by a Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Budget statement; and to what extent the categories of expenditure so described have since changed.

Returns of Government expenditure, above and below the line, have been laid before Parliament for the past 100 years or more and I am unable to answer the first part of the Question without more research than it would be reasonable to undertake.

For details of the various types of expenditure involved, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to figures published in Financial Statements and summarised in convenient form in successive Abstracts of Statistics.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the cinema industry about his refusal to reduce, or abolish this year, Entertainments Duty affecting cinemas outside the large cities.

I have received a number of telegrams and letters, most of which, however, refer to cinemas generally.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Gem Cinema, in Redruth, is to be closed at the end of this month because of his Budget? Does he not think it unjust and inequitable that a tax and levy amounting to about 20 per cent. of gross receipts should be levied on this industry? Will he look at the matter again?

I did not know of the case the hon. Member has raised, but I reduced this tax very substantially in the Budget last year. It may be that this matter will arise in our discussions on the Finance Bill.

Is the Chancellor aware that it is not only "may be" but that certainly, subject to the discretion of the Chair, we shall seek to move a new Clause to abolish Entertainments Duty on cinemas?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total dollar receipts accruing over the past six months in respect of United States purchases of the equity, or a substantial proportion of the equity, in United Kingdom firms, or by the sale to United States investors of British owned United States concerns, distinguishing the amounts received in security sterling and in dealings across the exchanges, respectively.

We do not, of course, have details of all purchases through the Stock Exchanges, but if, as I imagine, the right hon. Gentleman has in mind the big cases which have come to public notice, the total dollar receipts over the last six months are about £15 million. This was received across the exchanges.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this figure is somewhat smaller than that quoted last week in the City columns of The Times, although that may be on a different basis? Is he aware that we are concerned not so much with the total value of the exchanges as with the fact that some important British firms are passing into American control?

The difference, as the right hon. Member can imagine, probably arises mainly from the fact that a great deal of these payments have been made through the security sterling market, which, of course, does not involve a receipt in dollars.

Does that mean that the Chancellor does not necessarily quarrel with the estimate published in the financial papers and that about £100 million in dollar exchanges is probably about right?

It is extremely difficult to estimate what will have been done through the security market, but if the right hon. Member cares to put down a Question I shall give the best information I can.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of firms in respect of whom more than one third of the equity has been sold or otherwise transferred to foreign owners during the past six months, the total value of such transactions, and the number of firms resident overseas in respect of which more than one third of the equity has been so transferred.

This information is not available because we do not have details of Stock Exchange transactions.

While we recognise that to dispose of important British firms to American concerns is fully in accordance with the Trinidad tradition established by the Prime Minister, is the Chancellor aware of the very deep concern about the fact that this practice appears to be growing in this country? Is he equally aware of the concern felt, at any rate on this side of the House, at the rather flippant way in which the Economic Secretary to the Treasury seemed to suggest that there was no cause for alarm or action by the Government?

I certainly do not think that there is any cause for alarm or action on account of anything that has happened to date. It is very much in the interests of this country that there should be as free a flow of capital as possible both ways. We ourselves want to take advantage of opportunities to invest in other countries. That being so, it would be wholly wrong on our part to deny reasonable facilities for investment on the part of foreign countries in this country.

Is the Chancellor aware that at an industrial conference in Coventry on Saturday the workers expressed great alarm and anxiety lest control of policy should pass from Westminster and Coventry to Wall Street and Detroit in view of the impending take-over bid for the Standard Tractor Works? Can the right hon. Gentleman give some guarantee that when he authorises such transactions he takes account of public policy, with particular regard to the employment of the workers concerned who, as one in Coventry said, cannot be taken over like 3,000 cattle?

I can give the hon. Member the assurance that whenever a particular application comes in under the Exchange Control Act all relevant considerations affecting the national interest are taken into consideration. To get the matter into perspective, I should remind hon. Members that the amount of net investment we have made abroad enormously exceeds any net foreign investment made in this country over recent years. Even taking North America alone, I should say that the amount of new investment the United Kingdom has made in the United States and Canada together is probably equal to the total of new North American investment in this country.

Can the Chancellor say why members of his party making propaganda speeches throughout the country attacking the Labour Party proposals to invest British capital in British firms make no protest at all about investment by Americans in this way?

I could not for a minute accept what the hon. Member has said.

Is it the view of the Tory Party that it is better that the shares of British firms should be held by foreign private interests than by the British Government?

That does not arise at all from what I have said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were his reasons for declining to authorise an exchange of the British shares in British Timken for United States shares but permitting the American company to make a cash offer for the British share holding.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he gave to the Bank of England before it ruled against United Kingdom shareholders being permitted to accept shares in the Timken Roller Bearing Company of Ohio, United States of America, in exchange for their holdings in British Timken Company; and for what reasons British shareholders are thus debarred from participating in United States industrial prosperity.

When specific Exchange Control permission is given for the purchase by non-residents of shares in United Kingdom companies it is our policy to require a cash payment across the official exchange. On the other hand, we do not allow portfolio investment by residents in non-resident companies except through the use of switch dollars which are the proceeds of shares in foreign companies which were already held by residents in this country. An exchange of shares would have been contrary to both these requirements.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about this matter, which, I can assure him, is causing very great anxiety? We have a takeover bid for a minority holding well above the Stock Exchange price in an industry which is very important to our exports as well as to local employment. Is there an intention to put British Timken into liquidation and make it an American subsidiary and, if so, can he do anything to stop that or prevent it, or have any control to see that this business operates as an English concern?

I think that this particular case has been considered on its merits and I can see no circumstances in which to interfere with what is proposed.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an approximate estimate as to the extent to which imports will increase and the balance of payments will be affected in the coming fiscal year as a consequence of the tax reliefs and repayments of postwar credits in his recent Budget.

It is approximately estimated that the tax reliefs and repayments of post-war credits proposed in the Budget might lead to an increase in imports of £60 to £70 million in the present fiscal year. The balance of payments would be affected but to a lesser extent, since the greater earnings of our overseas customers would enable them to buy more from us. Hence our exports and invisible earnings would also be bigger than would otherwise have been the case.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer at least reassure the beneficiaries of his Budget that if this eventuates and there is a drain on sterling in the autumn, and if the Prime Minister still shows his present reluctance to go to the country, he will find some means of withdrawing their benefits?

The hon. Gentleman can rely on me to take all appropriate steps in any economic circumstances that may arise.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what number and proportion of Income Tax payers pay Surtax; and what is the average amount of tax relief per head they receive from his Budget.

Three hundred and seventy thousand, or 2 per cent. of all Income Tax payers who get an average relief of £115.

Does the Chancellor recall that last week the Economic Secretary to the Treasury told us that £40 million a year, or 24 per cent. of the reliefs in the right hon. Gentleman's Budget, went to Surtax payers? Can we therefore take it from his Answer now that it was his intention that the 2 per cent. who are the richest taxpayers in the country should have 24 per cent. of the reliefs in the Budget?

When the standard rate of tax is reduced the biggest actual reduction goes to those who pay the highest amount of tax, but the effects of the reductions which I have proposed will mean that Surtax payers as a whole will get a smaller proportionate reduction in their tax.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of Income Tax relief given in this year's Budget to a man with an income of £750 a year, all earned, and to a man with the same income all unearned, respectively.

A single man will receive £12 2s. 6d. relief if his income is wholly earned and £18 7s. 6d. if it is wholly unearned. The comparable figures for a married man without children are £8 11s. 8d. and £14 12s. 6d., respectively.

Was it deliberately or unintentionally that the Chancellor throughout his Budget gave more relief to those with unearned income than to those with earned income?

It was the consequence of a decision to propose a reduction in the standard rate.

Is not that in itself a condemnation of reducing the standard rate without a simultaneous reduction in the earned and other personal allowances?

No, Sir, not at all. The fact is that those who pay more get the bigger total reductions, but they get a smaller proportionate reduction in their total tax.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to obtain some measure of international agreement between the major industrial countries to concert an expansionary fiscal policy.

Regular international consultation about the economic situation and outlook takes place in such organisations as the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. Commonwealth Ministers and civil servants also meet regularly for discussion of economic prospects and policies. There is general agreement that in the present phase it is desirable to foster expansion while remaining on guard against the recurrence of inflationary tendencies. Production is in fact on a rising trend in the major industrial countries.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind that as he and his predecessors have almost completely dismantled our external financial defences it is now difficult for this country to go it alone with an expansionist monetary policy?

I would not agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I think that he must agree that we have always made clear our belief in economic interdependence and common action by all countries in the direction of strengthening and increasing world trade.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in his review of public service pensions, he will consider favourably the special case of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who joined the Royal Ulster Constabulary, details of which have already been given to him by the hon. Member for South Belfast and others.

I am not sure what special point my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, but I am expecting that my proposals will apply, as have previous Pensions Increase Acts, to the Royal Irish Constabulary.

If I again send my right hon. Friend details of a special case which is a complicated and long-standing grievance of a very magnificent body of men, will he look at it again?

Will my hon. and gallant Friend, before he decides to whom to send it, consider whether it should go to the Home Secretary or to me? If he decides that it should come to me, then I will promise to consider it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation requiring the consent of the Minister of Defence to any change of financial control in an industry vital to the defence of this country, which has the effect of shifting that control out of this country.

I do not think that it would be desirable to take the powers suggested by the hon. and learned Member, but I am satisfied that we should be able, if the need arose, to control industries vital to the defence of this country.

Could there be an industry which is more vital that the bearing industry of British Timken? The right hon. Gentleman has just told me that he can do nothing at all about it if there is a proposal to shut down that industry. Is that really consistent with his answer?

I do not think that what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said is conclusive at all. Because the ball-bearing industry is important to this country, that does not mean that we should prevent foreign investment in that industry. We have other means of controlling such industries if and when the need arises.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman told me, in answer to a supplementary question on an earlier Question, when I said that there might be a danger of this industry closing down, that if that happened he could do absolutely nothing about it and would not intend to do anything about it, but now he agrees that this is a vital industry to British defence and seems to give me a wholly inconsistent answer.

No. If the hon. and learned Gentleman really thinks this out I think he will find that that is far from being so. A particular unit in an industry can be closed down quite apart from any foreign ownership.

Is it not time that the Chancellor himself thought this out?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many American industries are finding that they are pricing themselves out of world markets, and is it not a serious danger to competition that such take-overs of British industries might be used to prejudice the position by closing some of them down or reducing their production?

I would not have thought so. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to get this matter in perspective. If this kind of movement assumed what the Government considered was undesirable or dangerous proportions, a different situation might be created. There is nothing in what has happened to date to justify any feeling of alarm among the people of this country or anyone in industry.

Is it not time that the Chancellor made a clear statement to the House about what powers he has in this matter instead of referring vaguely to other controls which he would use? Would he give the House, if not today, a considered statement as to what powers the Government have or would have or would use to prevent important defence or other industries passing out of the control of this country? Since he has told us that any control of purchases through the Stock Exchange is something not requiring Treasury permission, would he tell us how he proposes to deal with this position?

Our powers in normal times are restricted to the powers under the Exchequer Control Act, but in emergency the Government would no doubt take special powers to deal with this and many other situations that arose.

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

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what companies with authorised capital of £1 million and over are at present known to his Department to be negotiating with United States interests for the sale of their financial control.

None, Sir.

That is not surprising, but is it not obvious evidence of lack of necessary information in the Treasury? Is it not a fact that when negotiations of this sort start the preliminary observations are normally passed to the Treasury, in which case why is that information not available?

The Treasury can only become aware of what is proposed when proposals are made. No proposals have been yet made.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a White Paper on the general subject of the purchase by United States interests of the financial control of United Kingdom public companies, with specific reference to the consideration and authorisations involving his Department consequential upon the loss of these financial controls.

No, Sir. It is the policy of this Government to encourage overseas investment by our own residents both in the Commonwealth and, so far as we can afford it, in other countries. We also welcome investment in United Kingdom companies by non-residents. These closer relations are important to the welfare and prosperity of the world.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we do not entirely share his complacency and attitude that there should be equity between the United States and this country on the question of capital transfers? Is he aware that one of the developing dangers of this encroachment on our financial control of industries in this country is that American controlled companies under the present practice arid the new tendencies in the transfer of capital can restrict exports from this country and our export trade is thereby jeopardised?

I very much doubt whether that has been the experience to date. I would also remind the hon. Gentleman that inflow of capital of this kind increases proportionately our capacity to make fresh new net investments in the Commonwealth.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware, when he equates British investments overseas with American investments in this country, that ours are of a general kind whereas investment by the Americans is in strategic and key industries in this country? Is he not aware that by making that kind of investment the Americans get control of our industries, which is totally different from the widespread and benevolent investment that we make overseas?

Again, I think that the hon. Member will find that generally the spread of American investment in this country over the past ten years has been extremely wide and varied. As to the second part of his supplementary question, this is an important matter and the Government will, of course, keep the situation as it develops continuously under review.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the growing public disquiet at the way in which United States financial interests are securing control of important British public companies; and what companies, involving capital sums of £150,000 and over, have been authorised by his Department during the years 1952 to 1958 inclusive to sell to United States interests their financial control.

I do not think that there is any general disquiet, nor do I think there is cause for it. I regret that I could not provide the information for which the hon. Gentleman asked without quite disproportionate labour.

In view of what two leaders In The Times, which were followed up in other newspapers, have said, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this causes some disquiet? Is he further aware that there are an estimated 30 American stockbrokers or their agents now operating in the City trying to spot industries which might be taken over? Is he not aware that we on this side of the House do not share the views of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite who, while Question No. 20 was being answered, said it was preferable that Americans should have control of certain of our industries rather than that the British Government should control them?

I will take note of what the hon. Member has said. I do not share his views about the undesirability of what has happened to date, but once again I would say that this important matter is one which the Government intend to keep continuously under review.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that one has to distinguish between participation which in some cases may be desirable and control which arouses anxiety?

Yes, Sir, at last I can agree with something that a right hon. Gentleman opposite has said. I agree that there is a distinction there. This is a matter which, of course, is kept in our minds when we consider on its merits each application under the Exchange Control Act.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the high proportion of the revenue of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. which is absorbed in repairs and maintenance charges; and whether the Government will accept direct responsibility for the building, and so relieve the Opera House of this burden.

I understand that under 5 per cent. of Covent Garden expenditure in 1959-60 is expected to be on repairs and maintenance charges. In answer to the second part of the Question, I think the Arts Council is the proper channel for any Government assistance to Covent Garden.

Does not the Chancellor realize—and he ought to realize it because it is printed in the last report of the Royal Opera House—that from year to year the Opera House has to defer necessary repairs and maintenance work because it cannot afford to get them done? Is it not deplorable that the building should be allowed to fall into decay and shabby dilapidation when the Ministry of Works should be responsible for keeping what is a national institution in a proper state of repair?

My information is that no essential maintenance has been postponed.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue a revised and simplified version of the four-page instructions at present issued to Income Tax payers on how to complete their annual returns.

A simplified two-page set of instructions is already in use with the return form sent to manual wage earners and to employees and pensioners earning less than £600 a year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this four-page mass of microscopic print is sent to a very large number of Income Tax payers and that it contains as many words as the first twelve chapters of the Bible? Is it not time that we abolished this class distinction which apparently operates in the right hon. Gentleman's Department and had some simplified form for all classes of taxpayer?

I will admit that the higher the rate of taxable income the more pages of information I send. If this is discrimination in favour of the wealthy, I must apologise for it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the increase in consumer expenditure of 1958 over that of 1957; how much of this increase is due to increased prices; and how much is necessitated by reduced contents of food and non-food commodities sold in tubes, packets, tins, boxes and other containers.

Consumers' expenditure increased by 5 per cent. between 1957 and 1958. One half of this increase is attributable to increases in prices. Changes in the contents of packaged goods are taken into account in calculating price changes, but their effect cannot be separately estimated.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the method of compilation of the cost-of-living index figure is completely outmoded in this "pre-packed" age? Is he aware that this is an age when people know the price of everything and the value of nothing and that the stability of prices is now outmoded as a measuring rod of the cost of living? Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce the Hodgson proposal on weight or revise the compilation method?

Any question which the hon. Lady raises about weights and measures should be put to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and any question about the improvement of the Index of Retail Prices should be referred to my right hon Friend the Minister of Labour.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the real increase in consumption—the 2½ per cent. —was made possible by any increase in production and how much of it was at the expense of stocks?

I could not without notice, but if the right hon. Gentleman puts a Question to me I will give him the fullest information that I can.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to secure an increase in council house building this year, whether he will now reduce the Public Works Loan Board interest rate for housing loans to local authorities.

No, Sir.

As the right hon. Gentleman said himself last week that the Government wish council house building to expand, why does he maintain this 5¾ per cent. rate, which, to the smaller authorities, is a penal rate?

Because, as I have explained before, the interest rates of the Public Works Loan Board are related to the comparable rates in the market. While we are encouraging local authorities to raise as much of their needed capital as possible in the open market, it would be quite unfair to those authorities who did so if we offered lower rates through the Public Works Loan Board.

If the L.C.C. can borrow at 5⅓ per cent., how can the right hon. Gentleman expect the smaller authorities to believe that the Government can borrow only at 5¾ per cent.?

We try to keep the rates as closely in line as we can and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, whenever circumstances justify we change the Board's rate, but it would be wrong to do so on the results of one issue.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many residents in the United Kingdom are operating no-name bank accounts in Switzerland; and what representations have been made to the Swiss authorities to end this system.

No information is available. Under the Exchange Control Act, 1947, residents are required, unless specially authorised, to surrender all specified currency; failure to do so renders them liable to prosecution. The question of representations does not arise; the banking practice referred to is entirely with in the domestic jurisdiction of the Government concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these no-name accounts are held in Swiss banks? Would he agree that if British nationals were engaged in this practice it would be a highly discreditable thing to do and something to be discouraged?

If their object was to avoid our exchange control restrictions, I would certainly say that it would be deplorable.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide the Arts Council with sufficient resources during the present financial year to enable it to increase the support it gives to the theatre.

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) by my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary on 19th February.

Yes, Sir, but is the Chancellor aware that the amount given by the Treasury to the Arts Council only enables it to provide less than £70,000 in support of the theatre in the whole of the British Isles, which is far less than any provincial cities in Europe get from public funds, and that this amount is inadequate to enable our rep companies m particular to function properly?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have increased substantially the total grant to the Arts Council over the last two or three years, and in spite of the fact that a triennial grant was fixed last year I have increased the total grant again this year. The allocation of that total sum must be on the decision of the Arts Council.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that there has been long delay on the part of his Department in confirming the clearance areas after the proper public inquiry has been held in relation to the district of New Wortley, Leeds; and what steps he has taken to expedite matters.

Four compulsory orders and two clearance orders are involved, affecting a large area. They were the subject of public inquiry or hearing last December. I have confirmed two of the compulsory purchase orders and shall give my decision on the remaining four orders as soon as I can. But these raise legal or procedural points on which I am now waiting to hear from the Council.

Is the Minister aware that within the City of Leeds it is considered that his Department takes a rather leisurely view of these things? When can Leeds reasonably expect to have this matter cleared up, involving as it does a degree of slum clearance? Further, does he appreciate that the delay is very much to the disadvantage of the inhabitants?

I must rebut that allegation, because I know that there have been previous occasions when my Department has gone to special trouble to help the Corporation by expediting matters. In this case there are two small legal points outstanding, and also the question of whether for part of the area there should be a clearance order rather than a compulsory purchase order. I am now waiting to hear from the Leeds City council on those matters.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, whether he will take steps to amend the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, 1950, so that planning permission will be required by anyone proposing to change the use of shops, &c., into premises for the sale of motor cars.

My right hon. Friend knows that this matter is causing concern to certain local authorities, and he is watching the position; but he is not satisfied, on the information at present before him, that an amendment of the Order would be justified.

Is it not reasonable that local authorities should be able to say yes or no to a change of this kind which can alter the character of a whole neighbourhood? Will the Minister take particular account of the difficulties that have arisen in the Romford Road area of Manor Park, which has been brought to his attention. and indeed similar difficulties in other parts of Metropolitan Essex? Will he look at this question?

This is a problem in East London and in this part of Essex, but it is not a universal problem. We are examining the position in Ilford as a pilot effort and we shall then study the result.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when the proposed conference with local authorities on the disposal of radioactive waste is expected to be held; what form the conference will take; and whether he will make a statement.

I cannot yet add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on 9th April.

Does the Minister appreciate that since, as he himself has admitted, the present control is not adequate, this question is urgent, and as he promised consultation shortly when he wrote to the A.M.C. at the beginning of January, would he speed up the matter?

The Government attach a great deal of importance to this matter, but there are questions of future legislation involved, and before we start our consultations with the local authority associations we want to have definite proposals to put before them.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement of the estimated loss of agricultural land to all other purposes during the five-year period covered by the development plans on the basis of those plans and supplementary information.

An analysis has been made of a large number of development plans. This shows that, at the time the plans were prepared, planning authorities in England and Wales thought that, roughly, some 500,000 acres more would be needed for purposes such as housing, industry, schools and open space. The plans cover 20-year periods, and the estimate cannot be broken down into shorter periods. Particulars of this analysis will be given in the Annual Report of the Department to be published next month.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the figure he has given us squares with the figure provided in the Ministry of Agriculture return showing a loss of about 100,000 acres a year for the construction of houses, playing fields and so on? Would that be right?

The 500,000 acres refers to a period of twenty years, so that the figure of 100,000 would be about right.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, in view of the hardship suffered by many of those obliged to meet the cost of making up private streets under the Private Street Works Act, 1892, he will forthwith authorise and enable local authorities to issue interest-free or low interest loans to householders to assist them in meeting these charges.

No, Sir. This is a complex subject and before considering changes my right hon. Friend must see what emerges from the survey he has instituted.

Is it not now admitted by the Department that the law on this subject is obsolete and that a survey is being undertaken on the way in which citizens are hard hit? Is it not grossly unfair that citizens placed in this position should have to pay interest at the rate of 5¾ per cent. to meet these charges when they have to borrow the money, because they find it impossible to pay immediately. Surely something can be done about it.

The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that if loans which were interest free, or at an artificially low rate of interest, were offered to people who are liable for road charges, that would put a burden on millions of other people who had already discharged their liability to pay road charges.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what further assistance, other than by subsidy, he proposes to give to local authorities in order to enable them to increase their house-building programmes, and so relieve the long waiting-lists for council houses.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that the building of houses by local authorities has fallen from 257,000 in 1954 to 145,000 in 1958; what was the main cause of this reduction during a time when there has been a substantial unsatisfied demand for living accommodation; and what steps are now being taken, other than by subsidy, to encourage councils to increase the number of houses.

Since 1951 more than 2 million new houses have been built in Great Britain at an average rate of some 300,000 a year. This high level has been made possible by the continued growth of private building for general housing needs. As a result, the housing situation in the country has been enormously improved. In these circumstances, though in many areas there is still a strong continuing demand for houses, it was to be expected that the total number needing to be provided by local authorities should decline. Nevertheless, they have continued to build on a substantial scale, and have been told by Circular 60/58 that I am prepared to approve the building of an increased number of houses by individual authorities during the current year.

Is the Minister aware that many big councils, such as Salford, are being forced by the increased interest rates and the removal of most types of housing subsidy to confine themselves solely to rehousing slum clearance tenants? Will he therefore consider enabling the Public Works Loan Board to reduce its interest rate below the market rate by a financial grant? If the Government really wanted to do it, they could do it.

A question about rates charged by the Public Works Loan Board should be put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In my experience every authority can go on building because if it is not able to afford to build at reasonable rents by pooling its existing rents, then it has power to apply for a discretionary grant under the 1958 Act.

Can the Minister now give us the explanation asked for in Question 55 as to why there was such a substantial reduction of 100,000 houses in one year?

The answer is that there was never a reduction of 100,000 houses in one year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of council houses being built now is little more than half what it was five years ago? Is he also aware that the total number of houses being built now has fallen? Is he also aware that his slum clearance programme has not been up to what the local authorities could have done by themselves?

I find nothing in this Question about slum clearance but, of course, our total housing achievement far outweighs anything that the Opposition ever did.