asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to announce a favourable decision on the application by the Inch-green Development Company Limited, for financial assistance in the construction of the proposed graving dock at Greenock.

I am afraid that I cannot yet add anything to my previous replies.

Is the Chancellor aware that in the 15 months since he made his announcement, unemployment in Greenock has remained consistently at about 3,000? In view of the high hopes that were entertained about this project, can he give an undertaking that there will be a favourable announcement before the Summer Recess?

My difficulty, as I explained to the hon. Member before, is that I can act only on a recommendation made to me by the Advisory Committee. I understand that the problem, as I mentioned before, is due to the nature of the proposal and the general question of finance.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that it is the practice in the pottery trade for the supplier to charge Purchase Tax on the cost of packing and postage in addition to the cost of the goods supplied; and on what administrative principle such a method of charging Purchase Tax on the postage and packing of such goods is based.

Yes, Sir. This practice is in accordance with the law.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree, however, that this tax is irritating to those who have to pay it out of all proportion to its value? Would he not also agree that it is morally opprobrious to exact a tax on Government revenue and thus impose a double impost?

We have to have some common basis for all classes of goods. This principle was settled by Parliament in 1940 and has been followed ever since. If the basis were different and all packing were excluded, the rates might have to be correspondingly higher.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, whereas carpets attract 12½ per cent. Purchase Tax, electrical heating appliances 25 per cent., and transformers no Purchase Tax, Customs and Excise have ruled that an electrically-heated carpet, a new invention, shall pay 25 per cent. Purchase Tax as an electrical appliance, or twice as much as an un-heated carpet; and, as an electric carpet is fundamentally a floor covering, with the electric elements as ancillaries only, whether he will classify an electric carpet as a carpet carrying Purchase Tax at 12½ per cent. only.

Purchase Tax is charged at the standard rate of 25 per cent, on all domestic electric heating appliances, and I see no reason to differentiate here.

A carpet is not a heating appliance. Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the same problem arises with electric carpets, electric blankets and electric chairs? Why should the mere fact of electrically heating an article cause Purchase Tax on the article to be doubled in the case of a carpet and a blanket and multiplied by five times in the case of an electric chair, from 5 per cent, to 25 per cent.? Can we not be a little more realistic in these matters?

We are being realistic. An electric carpet is a floor covering and is a heating apparatus. Under the present law, where an article falls into two categories the higher rate of duty has to apply, and in this case it is 25 per cent. I will take another case in which my hon. Friend may be interested, that of electric moustache curlers, which are domestic heating appliances and, as such, attract duty of 25 per cent.

The Chancellor's reply presupposes that I am wearing a false moustache. My moustache is not subject to Purchase Tax and, therefore, it is not in any way analogous to floor covering.

It is not a floor covering. I was referring to it as an article of covering. The point is not the moustache itself but the mechanisms that are required to maintain it in a decent condition.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent free gifts and coupon schemes operating over a wide range of food and household commodities are regarded by the Inland Revenue Department as business expenses and subject to Income Tax rebate; and what is the total of allowances made for such schemes and coupon reductions for 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958.

I am advised that money spent in this way is admissible as a deduction in computing trading profits for Income Tax purposes if, not being of a capital nature, it is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of the trade. I regret that the information asked for in the second part of the Question is not available.

Is the Chancellor aware that this must be a very big item indeed? Surely, it is worth while looking into how much we are paying for something to which most of the population is opposed? Will the Chancellor do something about it? If he cannot as Chancellor, will he, when out with his shopping basket, tell the traders that all of us are opposed to it, including himself, as I am sure he is?

My difficulty is that the test that has to be applied is not a test as to the wisdom of the particular expenditure, but whether it is expenditure which has been incurred to earn profits. If it is expenditure which is incurred for that reason and it fulfils the other qualifications I have mentioned, it has to be accepted as admissible. I will bear in mind the hon. Lady's suggestion when I next go out with my shopping basket.

Is not all such expenditure partly of a capital nature in that it builds up good will, and so on? Is it not wrong that all of it is set against the expenses of making a profit? It is, and must be, in part a capital expenditure.

There is a great deal of expenditure which is incurred from the viewpoint of building up good will which would not be strictly of a capital nature. If, however, it were treated as being of a capital nature and it were still regarded as an item fairly incurred in earning profits, there would have to be some system of depreciation allowances on it and, at the end of the day, the result would be much the same.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a complete list of all industrial concerns, research associations, and other similar bodies in receipt of State-guaranteed loans.

I would refer the hon. Member to pages 66–71 of the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom, 1957–58, which show the position on 31st March, 1958. If he requires any more details, perhaps he will put another Question down.

Would not the Chancellor agree to consider collating the information, as it is important that the public should know the multifarious ways private industry is being supported by subsidies, research, and grants from public funds? Would he also consider publishing a White Paper on the extent to which private industry is getting a shot in the arm?

The hon. Gentleman will find that these are relatively small figures, but if he is not happy about them and thinks they can be summarised in any better way, perhaps he will write to me or put down a further Question. I shall be glad to consider any suggestions which are made.

Has my right hon. Friend not observed the extent to which public corporations and nationalised industries are subsidised by taxpayers' money to offset their huge losses?

That fact does come to my notice.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals have now been made, either by Commonwealth Governments or Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, to associate Commonwealth countries with a European Free Trade Area.

None, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he told the House last month that talks—"consultations" I think he called them—were going on between Commonwealth Governments and the United Kingdom Government in relation to the position of the United Kingdom Government with the Free Trade Area? Has the right hon. Gentleman nothing to add to that statement?

We shall continue to keep Commonwealth Governments fully informed on all these matters. No proposal of the kind indicated in the Question has been made by Her Majesty's Government here, or any of the Commonwealth Governments.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the official conversations at Stockholm amongst the seven non-Common Market Governments, including the United Kingdom; and what future action Her Majesty's Government now propose to take towards a Free Trade Market amongst the seven.

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the full communiqué issued on 14th June, to which there is little I can usefully add at this stage. The outcome of the talks in Stockholm was encouraging and Her Majesty's Government are giving careful consideration to the report which officials prepared as the basis for decisions by Ministers at a meeting about the middle of July.

Relating that Answer to the previous Question I put to the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether Commonwealth Governments will be brought in in any way possible, or will be affected, by the negotiations which are now going on?

They have, as I say, been kept fully informed of everything that we are doing in this matter.

What is a "sensitive industry" in the Free Trade Area?

An industry which is sensitive to competition from other countries within the area.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, so far as Britain is concerned, the object of entering into any treaty with the Seven will be to facilitate the ultimate creation of a Common Market for the whole of Europe and not to divide Europe politically and economically into opposing camps?

The expression "Common Market" is unfortunate, used in this connection. Certainly I give an assurance on behalf of Her Majesty's Government—this view is, I know, held by all the other Governments concerned—that one of the main objects is to create a bridge for solution of the problem on a full European basis.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the Prime Minister visiting General de Gaulle to get some softening-up in France's attitude may not be a more direct method of achieving the same purpose?

I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that suggestion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average annual growth of the United Kingdom's gross national product at constant prices since 1951.

About 2 per cent. per annum.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to United Nations statistics recently published, that figure compares most unfavourably with those of other Western countries, being only about one-third as good as Western Germany, for instance, and half as good as most other countries? Is that not a melancholy result of the Government's economic policy over the years?

I cannot feel that it is. Before one accepts the relevance of this comparison one has* to compare the starting points in each case.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the grants to Sadlers Wells Opera House being given by the London County Council over an extended period; and whether he will now consider the advisability of making the Government grants to the Arts Council on a three-year basis instead of annually.

I welcome the proposed grant to the Sadlers Wells Trust by the London County Council. As to the second part of the Question, when I increased the Arts Council grant for 1958–59 by 11½ per cent. to £1,100,000 I told them that they could count on it being maintained at this figure for the two following years.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that all artistic endeavours have to be planned a long time ahead and that in the Report on the Arts Council and Sadlers Wells, issued recently, attention was directed to the fact that these organisations are unable to go ahead in their future plans because of uncertainty?

Yes. I recognise the importance of that point, and I will try to bear it in mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what applications have been received, and what financial assistance has been made available, under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, in order to reduce unemployment in Sunderland.

No firm and eligible application has been received for assistance in Sunderland.

While recognising the disappointing nature of the reply, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that there is enough knowledge about this position among firms who might take advantage of it? Can we not follow a more vigorous policy in trying to persuade industrialists in this matter?

That point has been discussed. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has raised it before, but we have had some discussion on it recently. We have been taking further action to ensure that the existence of these grants is known. I cannot feel that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this result is disappointing, in the sense that only three preliminary inquiries have been received. One of them was withdrawn. In the other two cases further information is awaited. In so far as any applications have been made, the situation has been dealt with.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury how many applications for Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee's help have been received by the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committees from firms in the Upper Ward of Lanarkshire; and how many of these would assist the depopulation problem of Douglas.

One firm and eligible application for assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, has been received from an undertaking in the Upper Ward of Lanarkshire. I have ho information as to the effect, if any, that an offer of assistance in this case might have on depopulation in another locality.

Can my hon. Friend say how long it takes in processing these applications? Will he do his best to hasten forward that now before the Committee?

It might appear to be misleading to give an average figure, but in general it takes about two to three months, depending on the nature of the application. We are taking such steps as are possible to improve the rate of progress.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury to what extent the Development Areas Treasury Ad visory Committee is, in principle, willing to consider an application for financial help from any firm proposing to establish itself at Douglas, Douglas West and Douglas Water, in the county of Lanark, provided that this would create local employment capable of easing the situation within the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee area as hitherto defined, irrespective of whether its expected employees would be residents in the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee area.

The Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee can consider applications for assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, only if, among other things, the Board of Trade are satisfied that the purpose for which the assistance is required is likely to reduce the rate of unemployment in a place of high and persistent unemployment. I suggest that my hon. Friend should pursue with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether the case he has in mind is likely to meet this statutory requirement.

Will my hon. Friend support me in approaching the Board of Trade on a matter of this sort with a view to obtaining rapid clearance, certainly much quicker than the two or three months which my hon. Friend has mentioned? May I thank my hon. Friend for a very forthcoming reply?

The average of two or three months relates to the whole period. The period which the Board of Trade requires to satisfy itself on unemployment matters is much shorter. I know that the Board of Trade is as anxious as is the Treasury to do its part of the work quickly. If my hon. Friend wishes to approach the Board of Trade again, I think he will be able to do so without my assistance.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Her Majesty's Treasury accepted the bid of the Locana Corporation for the British Government's holding of shares in S.I.M.; and why these shares were not, in accordance with the Government's declared policy, made available to the public by the normal system of a public share issue.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer given on 16th June by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens).

Yes, I have seen that Answer, but it does not meet any of the points in my Question. Can the Chancellor explain why it was done, in view of the fact that the Tory Party, the Government and the big vested interests—as witness the fact that the Institute of Directors is supporting the Government—have been clamouring and running a ballyhoo campaign for months to the effect that the ordinary public should be allowed to take part in investing money in these companies? Why does not the Chancellor give the public a chance to get in on some of these profitable enterprises? Why does he give it all to a private concern which is, in fact, controlled by his own political friends?

I have given the shares to no one. My main duty has been to see that the best price has been obtained in the interests of the taxpayers. In deciding the best and most appropriate field I have to use my judgment, but in this matter I had no other obligation than that of ensuring fairness to those who had specifically expressed an interest in the purchase of these shares.

What were the Government's reasons for selling the shares at all?

We saw no advantage in the Government retaining them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what offers have been made to the Treasury by the executors of the Duke of Westminster's estate in respect of acceptance of the Rubens' altarpiece, The Adoration of the Magi, in lieu of death duties under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1956.

None, Sir. But the trustees of the Duke of Westminster's Estate have from the outset been aware of the Government's willingness to consider accepting this painting as a preeminent work of art under Section 34 (1) of the 1956 Finance Act.

Whilst regretting that the executors have not thought fit to make a direct approach to the Treasury, may I ask if the Chancellor will give an undertaking that should this picture be sold tomorrow to a foreign buyer he will do his part within all reasonable limits to secure this outstanding masterpiece for the nation? Is he aware that this is probably the last opportunity the National Gallery will have of acquiring any Rubens altarpiece?

If this picture were sold at an auction and bought by a foreign buyer it would be for the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art to consider the matter and, if it thought proper, to make a recommenda- tion to me. If it did so, as always, I should consider it very carefully.

Will the Chancellor bear in mind that we are being rather greedy about this picture? Have we not hundreds of valuable and beautiful pictures in the National Gallery already stored away out of sight? Would it not be for the benefit of artistically underdeveloped countries such as America to have a few beautiful works of art?

That is a broad question which perhaps we might develop on some other occasion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, when paying postwar credits to next of kin, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes will provide fuller explanations why arrears of Income Tax are being deducted.

Inspectors of Taxes are being instructed to give the fullest possible explanation in all cases where post-war credits are repaid with a deduction for arrears of Income Tax. If the hon. Member will write to me about any particular case he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.

Is the Chancellor aware that widows and other next of kin are very shocked when they suddenly get a remittance slip without any explanation except that arrears of tax dating back to 1942, or some other long period like that, are being deducted? What is he doing to relieve the doubts and anxieties of those who have already had such a slip without any explanation whatever?

I am doing everything I can to ensure that a full explanation is given of the deduction, but if the hon. Member will give me any information showing that that has not been done in any case I shall be glad to look into it. As to what I am trying to do, I am trying to minimise the inevitable shock which I am afraid some holders of postwar credits will have when they find that there are some debits to be set against the credits.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a progress report on the payment of post-war credits under his recent regulation; and whether he will state the number of payments made.

Repayment of post-war credits is going well. Between 1st June and 12th June, the latest date for which figures are available, approximately 570,000 payments were made.

Will the Chancellor bear in mind the great disappointment of many people who apply for post-war credits, particularly the long-term sick, and find they are not included in the scheme? As it is going so well and the number of widows, I understand, is less than was expected, will the right hon. Gentleman bring in urgent regulations to extend payments to these long-term sick?

I am fully aware of the point made by the hon. Member. In order to avoid as far as possible applications which could not be met under the present restrictions, I was at as much pain as I could be to make clear from the start what the three limited categories were. I think it too soon yet to consider an extension of them, but I will bear in mind the points the hon. Member and others have made about other deserving cases.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for the repayment of post-war credits have been received from people in the Ashington-Morpeth area of Northumberland; how many were seeking repayment on grounds of permanent incapacity or ill health; and how many have been granted and how many refused repayment to the nearest convenient date.

I regret that separate statistics are not available of applications for and repayments of post-war credits on hardship grounds.

Is the Chancellor not aware that within the mining industry there is a special plea for some consideration for those who are permanently incapacitated? Will he not give consideration to that plea and, if possible, give a little more power to his local administrative officers?

I am afraid that I have no discretion under the law as it stands to meet such applications as the hon.

Member has mentioned, but I have indicated that when the time comes and we can consider an extension to the present limited three hardship categories, I shall give very careful consideration to the kind of case which he has in mind. That is as far as I can go at present.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately what percentage of the total Budget is to be spent on defence, education, health, and old-age pensions, respectively, during this financial year.

As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates will be the effect of the action of the Iraq Government in leaving the sterling area on the capacity of this country to earn sterling currency for oil coming from Iraq.

There is no reason why this country's earnings from sales of Iraqi oil, or those of Iraq, should be affected.

Can the Chancellor say whether we shall have to pay the oil royalties to Iraq for the oil we get from there in any currency other than sterling?

I do not know, but it is not really of any great significance because, if we continued paying in sterling, that stering, representing current earnings, would be immediately convertible into any other currency at the request of the holders.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the provision of credit facilities for the building of new ships in the United Kingdom.

I have no evidence that United Kingdom shipbuilding is being hampered by lack of credit facilities.

Has the Chancellor seen the developments taking place recently in Western Germany? In view of this, so that our shipyards are not unduly prejudiced by accentuated competition, we must keep an eye on the question of credit facilities.

Certainly I shall be glad to consider any evidence of our shipbuilding industry—just as much as I would of any other of our important industries—showing that it is handicapped by lack of credit facilities. Any evidence the hon. Member has I should be glad to see.

Has my right hon. Friend the same approach to dry dock owners, as the Amendment we moved to the Finance Bill was rejected and this does indicate a change of heart on his part which would be very welcome?

I think my hon. Friend will discover that her question is not really related to the Question we are now considering.

Is it not the case that shipowners are not being handicapped through lack of credit facilities but because of the rate of interest on the loans they seek to obtain? Is he aware that Japanese shipbuilders are now making demands on their Government for a reduction in the interest on loans and, if that should occur, it will react unfavourably on British shipbuilding?

It would, but perhaps the Japanese Government, like the United Kingdom Government, do not agree to every suggestion and recommendation made to them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what administrative arrangements officers of the Inland Revenue obtain information regarding tax matters from proceedings, findings, judgments and documents arising from proceedings heard in chambers, as in certain divorce proceedings when evidence is given, or allegations made, as to tax defalcations and evasion; if he is satisfied that such arrangements are adequate; and if he will make a statement.

I do not think it would be in the public interest to disclose arrangements for obtaining information in cases of suspected tax evasion.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how a Member of the House of Commons may obtain corroboratory evidence in regard to allegations of fraudulent behaviour in tax matters by company directors or others, as, for example, the scandalous story told by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) last Thursday week in the Finance Bill debates? How can we obtain corroboratory evidence as to the truth or otherwise of such a story and, in the public interest, what action is being taken by the Chancellor to apprehend persons if they are guilty in that sense?

As to the first part of the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend, far be it from me to make any recommendations to him about anyone else and about what initiative he should take in any matter. As regards the second part of the question, the Inland Revenue takes all reasonable steps to see that taxpayers in fact pay the tax due from them.

With regard to Question No. 25, will the Chancellor bear in mind that a great deal of blackmail has been levied by the devices there referred to and is something about which one wants to be very careful?

I shall take note of what the hon. and learned Member says.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that his refusal to answer tax questions in cases where individual groups, persons or companies are involved is frustrating the work of Parliament; and if he will waive his present practice in order to satisfy the House that appropriate action has been taken in the case of the Midlands' company with a single director who is alleged to have defrauded the revenue, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Kidderminster.

I think that the importance of the tax affairs of individual tax payers being kept confidential is generally recognised, and the House would not expect me to make any exception in this instance.

Is it not an act of gross impropriety for private and confidential judicial proceedings heard in chambers to which a barrister who happens also to be an hon. Member of this House has access, to be related by that barrister in this House? Should not the chairman of the Bar Council be asked to consider disgraceful behaviour of that kind?

I should not dare comment on my hon. Friend's question.

As the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) appears to be trying to make a personal attack on me, may I ask the Chancellor if he is aware that the cases to which I referred in the debate were not cases in which I was engaged personally but the details of which were supplied to me by a member of the Bar knowing that I intended raising them in the House, with the intention that I should raise them, and that he gave the information in writing?

Withdraw.

On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the following point? It arises from the first three lines of Question No. 26. On 21st April, the Chancellor refused to answer a Question not about individual tax payments but on a general principle whether expenditure by companies on political campaigns was allowable for Income Tax purposes. Subsequently, the Table has refused to accept Questions on this matter. Is it not frustrating the will of the House if we cannot be told whether such expenditure is chargeable against Income Tax? What course is open to an hon. Member to pursue the matter?

It is a rule of the House that if a Question has been fully answered it cannot be asked again in the same Session. That is no doubt the rule which applies to the hon. Member's Question, although I have no personal knowledge of the Question.

I appreciate that, but surely this is Parliament and this is a general principle of taxation law. We must know what the position is. What can we do about it?

The first answer probably stated the position, did it not?

On a point of order. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) made a charge against my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) saying that he had disclosed facts in a case in which he had himself been involved. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] It was a case at which he had himself been present. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that what the hon. Member for Kidderminster said is within the recollection of the House. This was flatly denied by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North. Should not the charge, or any implication that such a charge had been made, be withdrawn by the hon. Member for Kidderminster?

Further to that point of order. When the words are seen in print tomorrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT, it will clearly be seen that I did not make any imputation at all that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) was himself involved in this case. In fact, the hon. Member for Lewisham, North has divulged to me that the information which formed the subject of this Question was given to him by another barrister, who was involved in the case. In due course I shall ask the chairman of the Bar Council whether that is not highly unprofessional conduct.

All this happened in Committee on the Finance Bill. I do not know what it is all about.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many more people pay Income Tax now than in 1951; and how much more is paid now in direct taxation than in 1951.

It is estimated that about 2¾ million more people will pay Income Tax in 1959–60 than in 1951–52 and that the yield of Inland Revenue duties will be £494 million greater in 1959–60 than it was in 1951–52.

Do not these astonishing figures indicate clearly that the Income Tax concessions given by the right hon. Gentleman in this Budget and by some of his predecessors are illusory and that more and more tax is being paid under Conservative Governments?

On the contrary, they show, first of all, how greatly the standard of living of people in this country has risen in the past six years. If these taxpayers had to pay at the same rates of Income Tax this year as they had to pay in 1951–52, they would be paying an extra £1,160 million. Individuals alone would be paying £1,010 million extra. Furthermore, 2 million more people would be paying Income Tax today.

Does the Chancellor realise that if they had to pay the rates of tax which they were paying at the end of 1945, they would now be paying over £2,000 million a year more?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider altering the allowance for foreign travel before the summer holiday season commences.

I have no change to propose at present.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that, with the position of sterling improving so much, and with its improvement known all over the world, this is a small request to make? Is it not wrong that we should be left in the position that people cannot spend more money than this, if they wish to do so, when they are abroad? Will he bear in mind that people have to plan quite a long way ahead, certainly beyond December? Can he give any indication whether a change will be made in December?

I will continue to bear in mind the points which my hon. Friend has in mind, but I have to consider quite a number of factors in this matter. I will not keep the present restrictions any longer than I find absolutely necessary.

Can the Chancellor disclose to us the miracle by which certain people manage to do all the things which they do in the Mediterranean on the £100 allowance?

No, I am afraid that I cannot, but if the right hon. Gentleman can I should be very glad to know.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps he will take to increase fixed capital expenditure by manufacturing industry, in view of the sharp decline in the first quarter of the year shown by the provisional figures recently published by the Board of Trade.

The Budget, by restoring the investment allowances and increasing the flow of purchasing power, was designed to create conditions favourable to an increase in fixed capital expenditure by manufacturing industry. The figures recently published by the Board of Trade are consistent with the expectations I had previously formed, and I do not see any present need to introduce further measures of encouragement to capital expenditure.

Do not the Board of Trade figures at least show that the Chancellor's expansionist policy has come rather too late? Would he not have done better to have accepted the advice given from this side of the House last year?

I think that the general indications are that the encouragement of expansion has come at exactly the right moment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of his recent discussions with the West German Finance Minister, if he will make a statement on the present policy of Her Majesty's Government on convertibility on current account for resident sterling.

The Government's policy remains as stated, to continue the removal of restrictions on trade and payments as and when we are able to do so, thus giving the greatest freedom of choice to our own people and contribute to the expansion of world trade.

Will the Chancellor reassure the House that he will not let the siren voices of the Bundesbank cause him to put us in a vulnerable position leading to a large flight of capital?

I have always indicated that we shall continue to take these steps as and when the moment arrives at which we can do so safely and with advantage to our own economy and benefit to world trade.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what grounds he granted permission for Messrs. Courage and Barclay Limited to erect a public house at the corner of Stoke Poges Lane and Granville Avenue, Slough, contrary to the decision of the local planning authority.

My right hon. Friend decided to give planning permission because, after considering the report of his inspector who conducted a public local inquiry, he could find no reason for thinking that a public house on this site would do any harm. I have sent to the hon. Member a copy of the letter issued to the parties which gives the reasons for this decision in greater detail.

Whilst appreciating that it is the normal practice for the decision of the Minister after a public inquiry to be final, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in this case there are very exceptional circumstances, that the Slough Council had allocated this land for housing, that the construction of houses had actually begun and that a majority of the residents in the area has petitioned against the decision?

This is a relatively small site on which not more than five houses could have been constructed. The inspector's conclusion was that a public house was acceptable in this predominantly residential area. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that seemingly a majority of the local residents was hostile to this proposal. That was taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend, but it is not a decisive consideration.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he returned a tender for the building of a block of flats in Bristol to the city council after the council had accepted it; and what was the result.

The tender in question was negotiated with the contractor, based upon an earlier tender submitted in October, 1957. Since the negotiated price appeared to be high, the Council was advised to see whether a better price could be obtained by re-advertising. My right hon. Friend has not yet received a fresh tender for approval.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of referring the tender back it has cost the Bristol City Council at least £622 more than it otherwise would if the Minister had not interfered? Does he not think that it is a gross waste on the part of his Department to duplicate the work of responsible local officials in drafting these plans and entering into the tender?

The Department insists on re-advertisement only where the negotiated price appears to it to be excessive. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the lowest tender is several hundred £s above the negotiated price, but I ask him to bear in mind that this is an exceptional case. In nine cases out of ten the prices tendered to local authorities following re-advertisement are lower than negotiated prices.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware of the grants being given to Sadlers Wells Opera House by the London County Council; and whether he will bring this action to the attention of all local authorities, reminding them of their powers under Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948, and urging them to give similar encouragment and support to the theatres in their areas.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the London County Council's decision. It is for each local authority to decide for itself whether and how it will use its powers to contribute to the provision of entertainment, and my right hon. Friend does not think that it would be appropriate for him to offer advice.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this fine and generous gesture by the London County Council should be brought to the attention of other local authorities, particularly in those areas where the local theatres are in risk of closing and where the local authorities might subsequently take steps to reopen the theatres at great expense, whereas by the application of Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948, they might save their local theatres at very little expense?

Local authorities in general are perfectly well aware of what their powers are. The Report which has just been made to the Gulbenkian Foundation by a group including Lord Bridges will emphasise to local authorities what their powers are, but that Report indicated very clearly that it would be wrong for Whitehall and Westminster to give direction to local authorities on matters of this kind.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great tendency for all moneys to be spent on the arts to be concentrated in London and one or two larger cities? Many valuable little local repertory theatres and other dramatic and cultural undertakings seem to be left in the cold and are in danger of dwindling away. Will he use what authority and influence his Department has to see whether, be it local authorities or the Arts Council, these small undertakings are not overlooked?

If any local authority, large or small, wants to undertake assistance of this sort, my right hon. Friend is perfectly prepared to look at loan applications with very great sympathy.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress is being made to rid United Kingdom coastal waters of sewage pollution.

Many schemes have been carried out by coastal authorities since 1945 for the construction of new or extended sewage outfalls or for the provision of treatment works. Other schemes are in preparation and each year brings new ones forward.

How many schemes are in progress? Can the hon. Gentleman also say whether more coastal towns are finding it unnecessary now to discharge sewage into the sea?

The House had an Adjournment debate on this subject last night. I then said that over 100 coastal authorities have carried out or are proposing to carry out about 160 outfall or sewage treatment schemes. This will cost altogether about £20 million. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are making very real progress.

Is the hon. Gentleman giving further consideration to the special problems of the Tyne and the coastal areas there after the Adjournment debate last night?

Yes. The problems of the Tyne are always in the mind of my right hon. Friend. We shall not forget it.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what representations he has received from the Easington Rural District Council about the proposed new appointments to the Peterlee Corporation.

The Council has asked my right hon. Friend to consider affording it direct representation on the Development Corporation.

Is it not the case that, when the Minister consulted the Easing-ton Council and it suggested that someone resident in the locality might be appointed to the Peterlee Corporation, he decided to go outside the area and he has actually appointed two persons from outside the area? What is the point of consultation if the right hon. Gentleman rejects the advice?

All that has happened so far is that my right hon. Friend has indicated to the Easington Rural District Council that he has it in mind to appoint two individuals. The Easington Rural District Council has made representations in the sense indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. Those representations will be considered. Having said that, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the considerations which normally influence Ministers in this matter.

How is it possible for the Minister to obtain the co-operation of the Council, which is essential in the area, unless he takes notice of its representations? Will the Parliamentary Secretary suggest to his right hon. Friend that he might consider that there are people in the area whose intelligence is at least as high as the intelligence of those outside?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not doubt the intelligence of members of a particular rural district council. My right hon. Friend's desire in the case of the new town development corporations is to have the right people as members, whether they be members of local authorities, industrialists or whatever they might be.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he will be able to confirm the Compulsory Purchase Order. 1958, for the High Street Development, No. 1, Wednesfield, Staffordshire.

My right hon. Friend expects to give his decision on this Order very soon.

I am very grateful for the reply that it will be "very soon," but I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulty there is in these towns with very large overspill populations. Will he please consider it very soon?

We certainly hope to get the decision out within the next month.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will state the population of Wednesfield, Stafford shire, at the present time and two years ago; whether he is satisfied that the development of schools, shops, and other essential amenities has kept pace with the growth of population.

According to the Registrar-General's mid-year estimates, the population of Wednesfield was 28,280 in 1958 and 23,700 in 1956. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the urban district council and the county council are taking steps to ensure that the provision of schools, shops and other amenities keeps pace with the growth in population.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that compliment to the local authorities, although that was not the point I was raising. Will he make quite sure that the efforts of the local authorities are supplemented by those of the Whitehall men and let us not have the delays that we have so far had?

We shall certainly bear that in mind.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the large number of people who have been drowned at an early stage of the present holiday season; and if he will consider the introduction of arrangements which will necessitate local authorities providing more efficient life-saving facilities on all beaches, rivers, and canals coming within their areas or under their jurisdiction.

My right hon. Friend has seen with great regret reports in the Press of a number of fatal accidents by drowning, but he does not think that there is a case for amending the existing powers of local authorities to provide life-saving appliances. He is sure that they are well aware of their responsibilities in this matter.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that all too often the facilities seem to consist of little more than a lifebelt on the promenade and a man in a rowing-boat? Could we not save a great many lives if we had a more positive policy, taking an example, perhaps, from the magnificent arrangements there are on the Australian beaches?

This is a matter for the local authorities. Under the Public Health Acts, they may provide life-saving appliances wherever they think fit in bathing areas, but if my hon. Friend has any instances where he thinks that those powers are not being adequately used, my right hon. Friend will gladly take up the matter.

In view of the accidents that occur, would not the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend call the attention of the authorities to the need for life-saving arrangements at this sort of place?

I am perfectly willing to consider that.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Cornwall there are a number of life-saving associations operating in exactly the same way as in Australia?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what representations he has received from residents in Haswell, South Hetton, Thornley and Wheatley Hill on the subject of housing needs and their objection to the proposal that they should find accommodation in Peterlee.

My right hon. Friend has received representations from residents in Haswell and South Hetton that more slum replacement houses should be built in these villages, rather than in Peterlee. In reply they have been informed that a town map for the rural district is being prepared, that members of the public will have an opportunity to make representations about the proposals therein; and that therefore my right hon. Friend cannot prejudge the matter by expressing views until that has been done.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this problem is largely attributable to the fact that the Minister has refused to provide a sufficiently large allocation of housing so as to enable the Easington Council to proceed with house building? Is that not really the trouble?

No. The trouble is that Easington, as a local authority, has asked for a larger allocation of slum clearance replacement houses. On the other hand, Peterlee has objected on the ground that, if that larger allocation is granted, it will place the future of Peterlee in jeopardy. That is the view of Peterlee. My right hon. Friend has asked the rural district to reconsider its attitude. The whole question will come forward when the town map is submitted to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Prime Minister to what extent the provisions that nuclear weapons shall not be used in case of war without the authority of the Prime Minister, apply to tactical or kilo-ton anti-tank weapons and to nuclear anti-aircraft defensive weapons by land and sea.

The arrangements for the control of the use of nuclear weapons apply to all types of such weapons.

I am very grateful for that Answer, but would the Prime Minister be good enough to go just one stage further and say that that decision will not be altered without informing the House?

Yes, Sir.

Does the Prime Minister mean by that reply that the Governments concerned, as well as the generals, must give their authority before these nuclear weapons can be used on the Continent of Europe?

The question was whether there is any distinction between different types of nuclear weapons and my Answer was that the same arrangements would apply; that is, a positive decision by Her Majesty's Government would be required in relation to all kinds of nuclear weapons.

It is obvious that the anti-tank weapons referred to in my hon. Friend's Question are more likely to be used on the Continent of Europe. That being so, would not the Prime Minister make it plain what the arrangements are in relation to those weapons?

With regard to nuclear weapons of any kind—whether operating under independent British command or under Allied command—a positive decision by Her Majesty's Government would be required?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a permanent research committee into the genetic hazards involved in the use of nuclear force and thermo-nuclear explosions.

The genetic and, for that matter, the somatic hazards of all forms of ionizing radiation are already kept under constant review by the Medical Research Council.

But is it not a fact that the Medical Research Council has no power to initiate inquiries on its own but power merely to receive reports? In view of the extreme importance of the matter, would it not be as well to have it under constant review by a qualified body which is able to demand, and compel, the supply of essential information?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has, perhaps, a little under-estimated the amount of work which the Council does. It is supporting much research on the genetic effects of ionizing radiation in a number of its own research units as well as in other centres throughout the country.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the disquiet resulting from the effects of man-made radioactivity, he will now request the Medical Research Council to undertake a thorough investigation into the incidence of bone cancer and blood leukaemia in people living at different altitudes, and make the report available to Parliament.

In principle, such an investigation as the right hon. Gentleman suggests would be a useful contribution towards establishing the relationship, if any, between the variations in radiation from the natural environment and the incidence of bone cancer and leukaemia; and experts are carrying on this type of study in other parts of the world. However, I am advised that bone cancer and leukaemia are so rare, and the range of different altitudes at which people live in the United Kingdom is so small, that it could not be effectively carried out in this country.

Now that we have the assurance that the idea of the threshold has no scientific validity, would it not be useful if we obtained information about the extent to which altitude affects bone cancer and leukaemia? If the Prime Minister thinks that altitude varies so little in Great Britain as to be not really important, will he furnish the House with the results of investigations elsewhere?

I was merely pointing out that, if one wants to make a scientific investigation of the varying effects of living at different heights, this country, which is, on the whole, a flat country, without great differences in the heights at which people live, will not provide the best places for this kind of research. Obviously, in places like Denver, where people live at a great altitude—the whole city is—a much more useful contribution can be made. I will certainly consider whether we can make available the results of these studies of altitude which have been made in places where the research is more easily conducted.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the proposals and actual commitments involving the use of highly-skilled manpower and other national resources in the development and manufacture of a supersonic bomber, supersonic transport aircraft, atomic-powered aircraft, atomic-powered submarines, guided weapons, ballistic missiles, nuclear and thermo-nuclear devices, and instruments and rockets for cosmic space research, he will appoint an appropriate committee to decide priorities in the widest and best economic and defence interests of the nation.

No, Sir. Machinery already exists for this purpose.

Whilst I am aware of the committee that sits under the chairmanship of Lord Mills and considers one section only of these activities, is there not a need for one body responsible for the deployment of our technical and scientific manpower over the whole field? Is not the Prime Minister aware that many responsible and informed people in this country feel that we are in danger of spreading our resources much too thinly; and is it not better to undertake rather fewer projects and do those superlatively well?

Those are all arguments that come up when these things have to be settled, as anybody who has taken part in administration knows, but I think that the broad machinery must be that the Cabinet must be the final arbiter; for the appropriate committees of Ministers and the appropriate Ministers to put forward their projects, after which the final decision has to be made as to what is the most effective use of our resources from time to time.

asked the Pime Minister whether, in view of recent developments at the Foreign Ministers' Conference, he will now propose the early convocation of a Summit Conference.

asked the Prime Minister if, in the light of the difficulties encountered at the Foreign Ministers' Conference at Geneva, he will now initiate consultations with other Heads of Governments about the summoning of a Summit Conference.

It is my hope that the Foreign Ministers' Conference which is to be resumed on 13th July in Geneva will lead to a meeting of Heads of Government.

Would not the Prime Minister agree that careful study of Mr. Gromyko's speech on Friday, as well as that of Mr. Khrushchev on the previous day, shows that the Western and Communist positions on the question of Europe are not so far apart as was at first assumed; and that the recent developments at the Nuclear Test Plan Conference in Geneva alone fully justify the earliest possible meeting of the Heads of Government?

I am certainly in agreement with the view that the hon. Gentleman has expressed—that it would be a mistake to underrate the degree of success that has already taken place at the Foreign Ministers' Conference. The Foreign Ministers have not reached agreement, but undoubtedly the positions are more clarified and, in certain respects, are nearer together. For that reason, I hope that after a short adjournment the Foreign Ministers will be able to make still further progress.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement of his hopes of a Summit Conference, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary will be making an up-to-date statement on the Conference?

I understand that there are a number of Questions addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend for tomorrow, and he thinks that it may be convenient to summarise them in a statement at the end of Questions.

Whatever the developments at the Foreign Ministers' Conference, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he will take the initiative in asking for a Summit Conference, which is more rather than less necessary if progress is not made by the Foreign Ministers?

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, but perhaps he will allow me to do my best to handle the matter in the way that I hope may arrive at a good result.

asked the Prime Minister if, in the interests of improving race relations, he will consider visiting United Kingdom territories in Africa during the Summer Recess.

I should certainly welcome an early prospect of visiting Territories in Africa.

I thank the Prime Minister for his reply, but is he aware that the banning of the Rev. Tom Colvin as a prohibited immigrant has considerably deepened the fears of the Africans, and if the right hon. Gentleman does manage to visit Africa during the Summer Recess will he use his good offices to try to bring about a different policy there?

That supplementary question arises directly out of my reply, but I know that my colleagues' visits are very valuable. My right hon. and noble Friend the Commonwealth Secretary has recently made a visit, and we are, I am sure, all hopeful of creating an atmosphere and spirit in which this very difficult problem that faces us all in Africa may be resolved.

Will the right hon. Gentleman first approach Sir Roy Welensky to make quite certain that he himself is not placed in the unenviable position of Mr. Colvin if he chooses to visit Rhodesia?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, but I am bound to say that his interventions have not always been in quite the spirit of those of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison).