asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he has approved an arrangement whereby a complete set of components for a Fair-thorpe Zeta sports car is sold at £878 free of Purchase Tax, whereas the assembled car sells at £1,482, including Purchase Tax of £430; to what extent articles other than motor cars and, in particular, television sets, radios, trombones, and refrigerators are also Purchase Tax free when sold in sets of components; what guidance Customs and Excise have given in these matters; and whether he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend's approval is not needed for arrangements which are governed by the provisions of Purchase Tax law. The liability to tax of articles sold in parts, and of the parts themselves, are dealt with in the Notices which the Customs and Excise issue to traders.

As nobody had thought in 1940–41 of selling, for example, a motor car or a refrigerator Purchase Tax free on the basis of a relatively small number of largely prefabricated units, and as the device to which attention is drawn in the Question is obviously an effort to evade Purchase Tax, would my hon. Friend look at this matter very carefully with a view to the revision of the Statute and the prevention of further evasion?

I have noted what my hon. Friend said. He has raised several points. In cases like this, the Customs and Excise keep a watch on the extent to which this sort of thing happens, and if the scale of the operations becomes important from the revenue point of view, we might well have to consider changing the law. In the debate on the Finance Bill, 1956, this sort of question was dealt with by the then Financial Secretary in connection with home-built cars, when he moved an Amendment, which the House approved, to cover the instance of a car which was assembled either out of a kit which had been bought or from a complete collection of parts made or picked up by the man who was doing the job. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the inventoral value in 1958, or later convenient date, of the twelve remaining nationalised steel companies, out of the sixty-two companies for which the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency was made statutorily responsible in 1953; having regard to sax years' operations by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, when the rest of these companies are to be de-nationalised; and whether he will state the policy of the Government in regard to existing investment by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in steel companies already de-nationalised.

The value of the net assets of the Agency's remaining subsidiaries at 30th September, 1958, was £89·6 million. As for the remainder of my hon. Friend's Question, I have no statement to make at present, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government has these matters under very active consideration.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that I contested the last General Election, at least in measure, upon an undertaking to complete the denationalisation of the steel industry at a very early date? As six years have elapsed since 1953, should not we be given an unequivocal assurance that the remaining £90 million worth of publicly-owned assets will be sold to private enterprise interests at the earliest moment?

I explained that this is now under very active consideration. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend said.

Will not the Minister correct the figure given by his hon. Friend? Is it not true that in the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency alone, leaving Richard Thomas out of account, some £200 million of share and loan capital is still held by the State?

I have not immediately to hand detailed figures, but it is certainly true that the value of the net assets of the remaining subsidiaries, which I gave as £89·6 million, is not the total amount which is in the hands of the Agency, because it holds other assets.

Mr. Nabarro. Question No. 3.

What is the total amount?

Order. I called the hon. Member for the next Question.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear you.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will refuse approval to all proposals of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency to offer for sale any securities of its wholly-owned subsidiaries until it has disposed of all the remaining securities which it holds in companies of which it has already sold ordinary shares.

No, Sir. Different considerations apply to the two categories of sales and it would not be either logical or necessarily advantageous to adopt the right hon. Member's suggestion.

Is the hon. Member aware that the reports of the Agency show that it now holds £125 million of prior charge securities in these subsidiary companies and that it has advanced £40 million to the Steel Company of Wales? Have not the Government themselves advanced about £50 million to Colvilles, which is also a semi-denationalised company? In view of the large holdings by the State, on the basis of which ordinary shareholders have been able to make large profits and fantastic capital gains, would not he now do what his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) almost invited him to do and say that denationalisation has failed and stop it from now on?

No, I did not say that.

I am sure that was not a correct interpretation of what my hon. Friend said.

Hear, hear.

As I replied in answer to my hon. Friend's supplementary question, this is a matter which we have very much in mind.

Will the Economic Secretary bear in mind and read the report which appeared in the independent newspaper, the Spectator, where it is urged that if the Iron and Steel Board is to do its job properly on behalf of the nation, a substantial part of the steel industry should remain in public hands?

I have not read that, but I will certainly look at it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will present to Parliament a full report, covering the years 1953 to 1959, of the discharge by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency of the duty laid upon them by Section 18 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, to promote the efficient direction of their subsidiaries.

No, Sir. The way in which the Agency has discharged its statutory duties is described in its successive Reports.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that we have had nothing at all from the Agency over five and a half years except financial statements, that there has been no indication whatsoever in the Agency's Reports of how it is managing its subsidiary undertakings? Is he aware that in my constituency the Agency disgracefully neglected the welfare of a company and quite recently closed it down and that we have no assurance that the future of other wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Agency remaining on Tees-side will not be similarly neglected and closed down? Are we never to get information which the Act requires the Agency to provide?

Regarding the works in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, I think I am right in saying that that subject was fully debated some time ago when my predecessor was Economic Secretary. So far as I know, the information which is given is in accordance with the terms of the Act. If the right hon. Gentleman will let me know of any way in which it is not, I shall be glad to consider that.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the words in my Question are taken directly from the Act,

"to promote the efficient direction of their subsidiaries."?

That does not mean that the Agency is merely to try to sell its subsidiaries, but is to try to run them like proper business enterprises. Surely it follows that, after five and a half years, Parliament is entitled to have a full report on the production activities, employment and practical business aspects of these subsidiaries which are wholly owned by the people.

Why not debate I.S.H.R.A. on a Supply Day?

This is a matter which cannot be debated at Question Time. The Agency has discharged its functions as a holding company, and as provided for in the Act, through the appointment of directors who are held responsible for day-to-day management and through the supervision of the financial affairs of the subsidiary companies.

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

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer having regard to trade dislocation expected in the first quarter of 1960 as in earlier years, due to buyers holding off purchasing articles in the shops subject to Purchase Tax in anticipation of Purchase Tax reductions in the April Budget, whether he will make an announcement concerning Purchase Tax reductions or abolition affecting any or all of the articles concerned, on 1st January, 1960.

No, Sir.

Is that the conclusive and final statement from the Treasury? Is my hon. Friend's reply to be inter- preted to mean that there will not be any announcement of any description in connection with Purchase Tax reductions—I repeat "reductions"—until April, 1960, when the Chancellor brings in his Budget?

The Answer which I gave, which was "No, Sir", was very carefully considered.

Was it conclusive and final?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many owner- occupiers receiving National Assistance grants are paying some of this money to the Inland Revenue in the form of Schedule A tax.

I regret that this information is not available.

Does my hon. Friend think it fair that pensioners and those living on small incomes should continue to pay Schedule A tax which in effect means that they subsidise those who are better off?

The owner-occupier in receipt of National Assistance would not be liable to tax unless he had other income, including the net Schedule A assessment on his house, amounting in the year in question to at least £180 for a single person and £300 for a married couple, and I believe that such cases are rare.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many old-age pensioners are paying full Schedule A tax as demanded.

I regret the information is not available.

Does my hon. Friend realise that people who have paid, say, £500, for a house are having to pay Schedule A tax and other people, who paid £1,000 for their dwelling, pay none at all?

I know the concern felt by my hon. Friend about this matter. I have looked carefully into these facts. I believe it is hardly possible for a person over 65 to be liable to tax if his only income, apart from his retirement pension, is the annual value of his own house.

Can the Minister make clear to any old-age pensioner involved that he is entitled to recover this tax and that he is not liable to the tax, according to the figures which the hon. Gentleman has already given?

Yes. For example, a single woman aged from 60 to 65 with nothing but her pension and her house would be liable to tax only if the net annual value of the house exceeded £50, but I believe that there are far fewer cases of this kind than is generally realised.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers are required to pay tax based on an estimate of their income made by the Inland Revenue.

I regret that this information is not available.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the owner-occupier who receives no rent income incurs heavy expense and still receives Schedule A notices? Does not he agree that the activities of efficient Inland Revenue officers would become positively popular if they adopted as their motto, "No income, no tax"?

In the case of owner-occupied property it has long been the principle of our taxation law that Schedule A assessment has to be made on an estimate of the amount of rent which the property would be worth were it let, taking one year with another. I realise the concern on this matter of many of my hon. Friends, but I think that we should consider carefully before going back on a very long established principle.

Is there any moral reason at all why property investment should not be taxed like any other investment and is not the utilisation by hon. Members opposite of the old-age pensioner as a "stalking horse" rather unsavoury?

I have always been told that at Question Time it is not wise to express views on moral issues, but I have no doubt that there will be future occasions which will prove suitable for such debates, when I shall look forward to a speech from the hon. and learned Gentleman.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the owner-occupier similar facilities in dealing with his Schedule A tax as are given to industrial enterprises.

I am not clear exactly what point my hon. Friend has in mind. If he will let me know, I shall be glad to consider it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a trading limited company is allowed to deduct its net Schedule A assessment from its profits before paying Schedule D tax which, in effect, means that it pays no Schedule A tax, and does he agree that similar rights are not offered to the owner-occupier?

A company which owns business premises is allowed to deduct Schedule A assessment when computing its profits under Schedule D. I will write to my hon. Friend about the case he has in mind, but we must always draw a distinction between what is a trading company and what is, after all, a basic necessity of life, namely, housing.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will impose Schedule A tax on owners of caravans to bring about equality with house holders.

My right hon. Friend has noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Will not my hon. Friend be a little forthcoming in his Answers to these Questions about Schedule A tax? Is he aware that, year after year, the Answer to such Questions is that the Government cannot anticipate the Budget statement. Would it not be fairer to say frankly that this matter will not be considered until the time of the next Budget statement?

It has always been the custom that one does not promise or rule out on Budget matters at this time, but takes pleasure in giving a neutral reply. I hope that my hon. Friend will remember that caravan dwellers form a very small part of the total population and that the majority of them hope to move into a house after a few years.

Is not there something anomalous in the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite in wanting, at one and the same time, to abolish Schedule A tax and to extend it?

I do not think there is anything unreasonable about hon. Members on this side of the House taking an interest in Schedule A taxation and wanting it to be as fair and as rational as can be devised. It is on that basis that I am trying to answer the questions put to me this afternoon.

Will the hon. Gentleman resist the demand from his hon. Friends to impose additional taxation, which is what this Question is suggesting?

I think that the questions asked from hon. Members on this side of the House are as well phrased as most supplementary questions asked by hon. Members opposite. I have no complaint to make, and therefore I do not think that the supplementary question asked by the hon. Gentleman adds very much.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange that all notices and advertisements concerning Premium Bonds include the information that the odds against winning a prize are over 10,000 to one.

No, Sir.

Does not the Economic Secretary think it desirable that savers who are trying to compare one channel of investment with another ought to have the facts put fully before them by those who are asking for the investment? Should not the Government set a good example in this matter in placing the facts in perspective?

I agree that an investor should consider all the facts relating to each of the possible investments that he may make. But an isolated figure like the one which the hon. Member suggests would be misleading because investors rarely purchase one bond in one draw. I might mention that a booklet about Premium Bonds was recently issued by the Post Office. It deals with all these matters in considerable detail and sets out fairly the possible odds.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was in a letter written by the Chancellor to me that the fact was disclosed that the odds against winning a prize are about 11,000 to 1? Having myself purchased Premium Bonds when the odds were about 2,000 to 1, and wishing nothing but well for the scheme as a whole, might I ask if it would not be a good thing to ensure that more prizes are offered so as to reassure the public that this is a reasonable proposition in which to enter?

The prizes are related to the rate of interest, which has not been changed since the scheme was started. As to the odds, I would repeat that all the relevant odds are referred to frankly and honestly in this booklet which has been published by the Post Office.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will in crease the maximum holding of Premium Bonds to 1,000 to give a greater incentive to accumulative buying and retention.

No, Sir. The great majority of holdings are still small and the present limit is not frustrating any appreciable volume of genuine small savings.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give instructions to the Estate Duty Office to accept Premium Bonds in lieu of cash on payment of death duties exigible on the death of the holder of the bonds.

This proposal could not be implemented under the terms of issue of the present Bonds. However, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is prepared in future to allow encashment of Bonds before probate for the purpose of paying death duties. This should be a help in the type of case my hon. Friend has in mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to take the necessary steps to eccelerate the repayment of post-war credits.

I regret that I cannot yet make a statement about accelerating the repayment of post-war credits.

Why cannot the Financial Secretary do so? Is he not in a position under the existing legislation to bring additional classes of hardship into the category Which entitles them to repayment of post-war credits? In view of the present state of national prosperity, why is he not prepared to meet these cases of hardship?

I explained this point last week in reply to two supplementary questions asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I have no further statement to make at present beyond what my right hon. Friend has already said on the subject.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of subsidies paid to farmers, and the value of the investment and initial allowances they received in tax relief, in the year 1958; the value of the initial and investment allowances paid to the National Coal Board in the same year; and the value of the special investment allowance paid to the shipbuilding industry for 1958.

The amount of subsidies paid to farmers in the financial year 1958–59 is estimated at £238·8 million. The value in terms of tax relief of the investment and initial allowances received by farmers in the same year is estimated at £5 million. As regards the third part of the Question, I cannot disclose information about the fax affairs of a particular concern. I assume that the fourth part of the Question relates to the shipping industry; the value in terms of tax relief for the year 1958–59 of the investment allowance given for capital expenditure on new ships is estimated at £22 million.

I observe that the Financial Secretary has not given any figures relating to any benefit received by the mining industry in the form of investment allowances or anything else. Is it not rather peculiar that the Exchequer is helping industry throughout the country in various ways, by means of grants and so on, and yet the Coal Board is being charged £32 million by way of interest? In view of the grants given to the fishing, farming and horticultural industries, is not it time that grants were given to the mining industry?

We cannot debate the mining industry, and I cannot go beyond the steps which the Leader of the House explained when winding up the debate on the Address. The Government are taking three steps: first, the provision of finance to enable large stocks of coal to be held; second, the re-examination of the power station oil contracts, which leads to an increase in coal consumption; and third, a check on opencast production and its virtual elimination by 1965. I cannot go beyond those three points.

Would the Financial Secretary agree that in principle there is just as good an economic case for national support for home-produced fuel as there is for home-produced food?

I should say there was certainly a good case for special measures to encourage productive efficiency in the country, which is the whole point of the investment allowance. On the point relating to the coal industry, I cannot go beyond what I have said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his estimate of the total sum of money to be paid by the Exchequer to the cotton industry under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959; and whether he will give a similar grant to the National Coal Board who are having to undertake similar reorganisation in the face of economic difficulties.

Given a favourable response from the industry, the cost might be of the order of £30 million over five years. As for the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer he received from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power on 30th November.

Can the Minister explain the difference in the attitude which he has shown, for example, to the cotton industry and the attitude which is shown to the National Coal Board? Is not the mining industry as important to the country as a whole as the cotton industry or any other industry? Why not give the mining industry some help instead of penalising it to the extent of £32 million a year, which is equal to 3s. a ton?

The two cases are not comparable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Perhaps I can explain. The grants to the cotton firms are intended as a stimulus to induce them to undertake the necessary investment, three-quarters of which they have to finance themselves at higher interest rates than those at which the National Coal Board borrows from the Exchequer. The Coal Board, on the other hand, is in a different position. It looks to the Exchequer for all its capital requirements.

Will my hon. Friend make it clear to hon. Members opposite that the Coal Board has had most favoured treatment? In fact, it has been favoured to the point of being pampered. Will my hon. Friend urge upon the Coal Board, through his right hon. Friend, that one of the best ways for the Board to help itself is to diminish its large stocks?

The question of stocks, as I believe my hon. Friend knows, is one of the most important matters before the Coal Board at present.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the figure of £30 million which he quoted was the figure estimated at the time that the Cotton Industry Bill was going through Parliament; that subsequent events have shown that the expenditure is likely to be considerably more, probably more than double; and that of that sum the great bulk is not paid for re-equipment, as he implied in his answer, but is paid for compensation for the closing of mills and the destruction of machinery, which would seem to many of us to be strictly analogous to the closing of pits?

The payments under the Cotton Industry Act are, in the first place, to assist in removing excess capacity in the cotton industry and, in the second place, grants to encourage re-equipment in firms. With regard to removing excess capacity, the cost will be £11 million, not including anything provided for finishers, because that point is not yet settled, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. As to the second aspect, we consider that, together with the £11 million which I have mentioned, the total cost will be £30 million. We have looked into this matter again in the light of the Question and, as far as I know, it is not necessary to give a different answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will accept the possession of a school certificate or a higher certificate as giving exemption from the written examination for entry into the clerical class of the home Civil Service.

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the competitions for posts in the clerical class open to candidates between 20 and 39. For these competitions, the Civil Service Commissioners do not consider that examinations taken as far back as 1950 or earlier would provide them with a sufficiently up-to-date measure of the candidate's mental capacity.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have a case of a man who has the school certificate with seven credits and a distinction, and the higher certificate, but who must nevertheless sit for the written examination because he has not got the G.C.E. at O level? Is this not rather unreasonable and discouraging?

I see the point, but, accepting the fact that some time limit is necessary, I still think that 1951 was reasonable as the earliest date to accept. After all, an examination consisting of three papers of 1½ hours each is not a very strong demand to be made of someone who is applying for a post in which, if he is successful, he will be employed until reaching retirement age.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he anticipates will be the yield of the Purchase Tax on motor cars during the current financial year.

My right hon. Friend's Budget estimate included £145 million in respect of Purchase Tax on motor cars.

Will my hon. Friend convey a message to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that many of us place such reliance upon the Chancellor's unchallengeable integrity that we believe he will find it impossible to touch even one penny of this money until he has considerably increased the road programme?

I will certainly convey i hat message to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum would be gained by the Revenue if the Stamp Duty on cheques were increased by one penny.

About £3½ million in a full year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this duty was last increased by 1d. by his illustrious predecessor, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, in 1902? Will he bear in mind that an increase in the duty would provide him with funds to reduce considerably Surtax, death duties and other iniquitous forms of taxation?

This certainly is a question to which I will answer that I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Does the Financial Secretary notice the enthusiasm for increased taxation coming from hon. Members opposite?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recommendations he has received in regard to the design for future bank notes; what recommendations he proposes to make to the Bank of England; and if he will undertake consultations with the appropriate representatives of blind people to ensure that any recommendations take into account their special requirements.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will ask the Bank of England to bear in mind, when changing the design of Bank of England notes, the needs and difficulties of blind people.

A number of suggestions regarding the design of bank notes have been received and I have been assured by the Bank of England that these are being given due consideration. As I have indicated in replies to previous Questions, the problem as it affects blind people is being discussed by the Bank of England with St. Dunstan's and the Royal National Institute for the Blind.

I understand that a meeting for this purpose is taking place this afternoon.

Will the Economic Secretary bear in mind that blind people individually and collectively are apprehensive about the move that has taken place? Will he undertake to ensure that the unique claims of these people on all Members of the House have the same priority as any commercial claims that there may be in connection with these bank notes? Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether a report can be made of the ultimate negotiations, and whether in that report the willing approval of the representatives of blind people can be shown? Thirdly, can he say whether a specimen print has been made of the £1 notes, and if so, will he defer further printing?

I do not know what the answer is to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I am conscious of the importance of this matter. I have myself received a considerable number of letters on the subject, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bank of England will certainly do all it can to help.

Would it not have been better to have consulted the blind organisations first, rather than make the announcement first that the sizes will be assimilated and then to consult the organisations?

I can only say that this matter was considered by the Bank of England originally, and I hope that from now on it may be possible to find a solution to the difficulties.

If there is any insuperable difficulty in making the notes in different sizes, will the hon. Gentleman consider one of them being made with a serrated edge to enable people to distinguish between notes of different denominations just as we are able to distinguish between different coins?

I am sure that the Bank of England will be happy to consider any suggestions.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is genuine feeling about this problem of the different sizes of these notes? If it is not possible to change the design and size, will he examine the possibility of incorporating an embossment of some sort on the notes which will make them more readily distinguishable?

My hon. Friend has already spoken to me about this matter and I know how concerned he is. I can promise him that his views will be made known to the Bank of England.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the recent statement of the Chairman of the British Film Institute, pointing out that an offer has been made by the film company concerned of valuable material connected with the film productions of the late Sir Alexander Korda and Mr. Vincent Korda for which no proper storage or display space is available; and what attention has been paid to this and cognate problems affecting the National Film Archive in deciding on the amount of grant made available to the Institute.

Yes, Sir. As the offer was made only very recently, it could not have been taken into account in fixing the grant-in-aid to the Institute in the current year even if it were right to do so. As regards next year's grant, I must ask the hon. Lady to await the Estimates.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the present circumstances it is necessary to store this material either in a basement in London or in a wooden hut at Aston Clinton? Is he also aware that much of the material in the National Film Archive cannot be made available to students because there is no staff for cataloguing?

I am aware that this is a difficult matter where controversies have not been resolved. I am considering it carefully.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the National Symphony Orchestra, which receives a grant from the Arts Council, is in danger of losing many of its skilled musicians because of the low salaries it is obliged to pay; and whether he will now revise his previous policy and ear- mark a sufficient proportion of his grant in aid to the Arts Council for the assistance of this orchestra, in order that its present artistic standards may be maintained.

No, Sir. As I indicated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on 26th November, my right hon. Friend is not prepared to earmark any proportion of the Arts Council's grant for any purpose whatever.

While thanking the Financial Secretary for his reply, may I express the hope that financial aid for the national provincial symphony orchestras will be made available as soon as possible?

The policy has always been that the Arts Council shall have complete discretion in the distribution of its grants, but I can assure my hon. Friend, having heard the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra many years ago give one of the first performances of Walton's Violin Concerto, that I am well aware of its importance.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now received proposals from the trustees of the British Museum with regard to an extension of the hours during which either the Museum as a whole, or the Reading Room, is open to the public; and what reply he has made.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the sum which has already accrued to the British Museum as its share of the estate of the late Bernard Shaw is £163,924 10s. 5d., and in view of the fact that under the terms of the will this bequest was made in acknowledgment of the value to the testator of his daily resort to the Reading Room at the beginning of his career, whether he will inform the trustees of the British Museum that he will now view sympathetically proposals from them calculated to improve the services of the Reading Room.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury what proposals he has now received from the trustees of the British Museum for keeping the Reading Room open in the evenings for the benefit of students who otherwise cannot make use of its facilities; and what assistance he will give to the implementation of these proposals.

I understand that the British Museum Trustees have for some time been considering the possibility of some measure of evening opening of the Reading Room and that on their directions a scheme is being prepared which will shortly be submitted to the Treasury.

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that any scheme would be sympathetically considered, when may a favourable reply be expected by the Trustees?

I cannot give a definite date this afternoon, but I can promise the hon. Gentleman that there will not be any unnecessary delay.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the scheme proposed is likely to suggest opening the Reading Room of the Museum for only three days a week? Does not he think that, while this matter is being dealt with, the necessary financial arrangements should be made to enable the Reading Room to be open in the evenings for five days a week?

I cannot add more this afternoon. I, too, have read the references which have appeared in the Press. The Government know that hon. Members on both sides attach importance to this. As soon as a proposition is made, we shall look at it very carefully in all its aspects.

Later—

rose—

I think that the hon. Member was not here when Question No. 40 was answered. It was answered with Question No. 24. If the hon. Member was here at that time, I did not see him.

On a point of order. May we have your ruling, Mr. Speaker, about the question of relationship between different Questions? As I see it, I had no reason to suppose that the two Questions were in any way related, since my Question deals with the encouragement of donations to the State by testators for such things as the British Museum.

I hope that I act in accordance with the practice of the House in this matter. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. When an hon. Member's Question is answered with another Question in his absence, there is great difficulty in having it asked again at a later stage. I will confer with my advisers in order to confirm my view in case it be an illusion on my part that in adopting that system I am following the practice of the House.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total value of subsidies given to the British Transport Commission, the National Coal Board, the Electricity Board, and the Gas Board, since each of these industries became publicly owned; and the difference between the subsidies paid to the above publicly-owned industries and the subsidies paid to each of the above industries when privately owned over the last corresponding period of private ownership.

No subsidies have been paid to any of these industries since they were nationalised. As regards the second part of the hon. Member's Question, a number of grants of relatively small amount, were paid to the industries during the years 1935 to 1946, mainly to meet problems caused by the war and to encourage industrial development in areas of unemployment. It would not be possible to quantify these without an undue expenditure of time and effort.

When the hon. Gentleman is considering with his colleagues making subsidies or grants to private industry, will he bear in mind at the same time that publicly-owned industries, upon which the national economy rests, could do with an infusion of economic help?

I explained in my original Answer that no subsidies had been paid to any of the industries since they were nationalised. They are, however, able to borrow considerable amounts from the Exchequer. Since 1956, when the new system came into operation, they have borrowed £1,208 million from the Exchequer.

Why does the hon. Gentleman say that relatively small amounts were paid to privately-owned industries, now nationalised, before the war? Is he aware that under the Baldwin Government £25 million were conceded to the private-owned mining industry by way of subvention? Is £25 million a relatively small amount?

I do not wish to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, but when I said "relatively small" I meant relatively small in relation to the other figure which I gave.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the circumstances under which Her Majesty's Customs and Excise opened a crate of personal effects addressed to Mrs. Viet Wilson, a Swedish citizen residing in this country, and confiscated two books, "Lady Chatterley's Lover", by D. H. Lawrence, and "Tropic of Capricorn", by Henry Miller; whether he will explain the reasons for the removal of the books; why the shipping agents were not informed of the seizure as is normally done; and why no certificate of seizure was placed in the crate from which the books were removed.

This matter is being investigated and I will write to the hon. Member.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the controversy over Lawrence has been dead for over twenty-five years? Lawrence is now recognised as a major English novelist. His works are prescribed reading for university students in every reputable Department of English literature in this country and America. It is absurd that in 1959 Customs officials should be rummaging through the luggage of British or foreign citizens looking for copies of "Lady Chatterley's Lover".

One has to abide by the law, and as recently as 1955 this book was ruled to be obscene by a magistrate at Bow Street.

Is not one of the books in question in the House of Commons Library?

I have not found it yet.

If a magistrate gave that ruling, does it not show that there must be something wrong with the law and that it should be altered?

That is hardly for me to answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consult with Messrs. Colvilles, Limited, Motherwell, with a view to converting the £14 million of public money at present invested with that company in the form of loan capital at a low fixed rate of interest into ordinary dividend earning shares.

No, Sir. It would be contrary to Government policy for the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, by whom these investments are held, to acquire ordinary shares in companies that have been denationalised.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that when this company was denationalised four years ago the ordinary shares were sold for £13 million and that, because of the public money loaned to this company since then, those ordinary shares are now worth £33 million? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that he has a duty to ensure that the public purse benefits as well as the private sector?

Of course we have a duty to consider that, but nevertheless the Agency also has a duty—indeed, it is its primary duty, which is consistent with Her Majesty's Government's policy—not to acquire equity shares in companies already de-vested.

In view of the vast public investment in this company, would it not be a good plan to appoint some Government directors to ensure that the business is managed properly?

That is another question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that many Commonwealth countries have adopted a decimal coinage or are now contemplating taking such a step, he will authorise an inquiry into the de sirability of such a reform in this country; and whether he will also arrange for an early exchange of views on the subject with our Commonwealth partners.

Not at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Australia is now contemplating a change-over and that other Commonwealth countries have either done so or are thinking about it? Recent correspondence in the Financial Times shows a substantial body of opinion in favour. Authoritative bodies, like the Federation of British Industries, have not closed their minds to the idea. Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to look at this again, otherwise we shall be left at the end of a long queue isolated as the only non-decimal country in the world?

I realise the force of my hon. Friend's argument, but the reason I gave him the answer "Not at present" was that, as he may know, the British Association is at the moment considering various matters, of which this is one, and it is probably better to wait until we have its Report.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the total expenditure by the Arts Council, excluding the central overhead expenditure on Covent Garden, on opera and ballet, and the percentage of such expenditure in London and the provinces, respectively, in the years 1950–51, 1951–52, 1952–53, 1953–54, 1954–55, 1955–56, 1956–57, 1957–58. 1958–59.

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

As the figures disclose that the provinces are very unjustly treated vis-à-vis London, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that no fresh grant of money will be made to the Arts Council until both sides of the House of Commons have had the opportunity to debate the whole matter of the administration of the Arts Council in this respect, which I believe is a scandal?

I think that my hon. Friend should table that question on the Order Paper.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to ensure the more effective protection of provincial cities, country towns, and villages against unsightly architectural development, he will discuss with the Royal Fine Art Commission the possibility of setting up regional committees of the Commission.

I will bring this suggestion to the notice of the Commission. It is, I suggest, primarily for the Commission to consider how best it can carry out the duties laid upon it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered all the factors relevant to the withdrawal of farthings from circulation; and if he has yet come to a decision in the matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in addition to the proposed revision of the size of bank notes, he will give consideration to a revision of metal coinage.

I have nothing to add to the reply which my right, hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) on 10th November.

May I ask whether since 10th November there has been a flood of representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of the retention of farthings? Has not all the evidence or comment he has collected so far been in favour of abolition at the earliest possible moment? What is holding things up?

When my right hon. Friend answered the hon. Gentleman only about three weeks ago he said that he would like to have the widest comment before a decision is taken. I have seen certain letters arriving at the Treasury, but they are not all one way.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional grant he has made available to the Arts Council for the special purpose of establishing a pension scheme for senior staff; what grades are affected; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir. The Arts Council operates a contributory pension scheme which covers all members of the staff, except daily cleaners, provided they are within the prescribed age limits.

Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, as there has been some difficulty recently about Questions on the Order Paper, may I ask him to indicate just how far he is prepared to go in answering Questions? Will he bear in mind that his predecessor last July inadvertently rather closed the door, and is my hon. Friend prepared to open it, in view of the general interest of the public in these matters?

Yes. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will try to make the position about this quite clear. My right hon. Friend and I should, in general, be ready to answer Questions asking for factual information about the Arts Council's activities when the facts are available and we should also be prepared to answer Questions asking whether my right hon. Friend will increase the grant to the Arts Council or earmark it for a specific purpose, though I am sure that hon. Members will not be surprised if our answer is normally that, so long as the Arts Council continues to enjoy my right hon. Friend's confidence, he intends to leave it free to decide for itself how much of its total grant it allocates to the purpose concerned. We consider that the reasons for certain decisions by the Arts Council, as well as its proposed course of action in the future, are matters entirely within the Arts Council's own sphere of responsibility. I think that that is a fair demarcation, and I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will accept it.

Why does this scheme exclude the daily cleaners?

I was rather puzzled about that myself, but if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him about them and explain.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider furnishing the money necessary to pro vide all old-age pensioners with an allowance of free coal for Christmas.

No, Sir. It is not the intention of the Government to extend what would in effect be benefits in kind.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the Government's election pledges to alleviate distress among the old folk? Does not he consider that this is an opportunity to honour them? Is not he aware that if he acceded to this request he would not only earn the gratitude of those poor people who are not "having it so good", but would also win the approval of the nation?

Everyone on this side of the House rightly said during the election that both retirement pensions and National Assistance benefits in real terms were higher than they had ever been. The point in the Question is whether we should return to some system of benefits in kind, as we had with the tobacco token scheme We are quite right as a Government to set our mind against that sort of benefit.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what overall plan he has to help those living on small fixed incomes.

As my hon. Friend knows, we are very conscious of the difficulties with which many such people are faced. By far the best way to help them is to safeguard the stability of the economy, and this is what we are doing.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there was an election pledge? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to give consideration to this during the Recess, possibly setting up a Committee or something like that? Will he also convey to his right hon. Friend that I shall be in hot pursuit when the House resumes after the Recess?

I will certainly convey those observations to my right hon. Friend, and perhaps at the same time I may warn him.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to carry out the suggestions of the Committee on the Working of the Monetary System to assist small businesses, especially those engaged in new inventions and innovations of technique.

The Radcliffe Committee made three proposals in this field: for an Industrial Guarantee Corporation, for term loans to small businesses by the banks, and for raising the upper limit on the size of transaction in which the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation may engage. The only one of these with which Her Majesty's Government is directly concerned is the first. On this, my right hon. Friend has asked his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to consider what need there is for a body of the kind suggested, and what contribution it might be able to make.

As to term loans, the hon. Gentleman will know that two banks have announced the introduction of term loans schemes for small businesses. As to the I.C.F.C., I understand that its shareholders have now agreed that the Corporation may take up the whole or part of any issue the total amount of which does not exceed £300,000.

Is not the Economic Secretary aware that many modern scientific inventions are suitable for development by small businesses? There is at the present time a serious danger of many small businesses being absorbed by financial groups without any technical or scientific management or scientific interest.

I will draw the remarks of the hon. Member to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Since the hon. Gentleman fairly said last week in the debate on the Radcliffe Report that it was impossible for any hon. Member to deal with all the issues raised in the Report, even Ministers—this is one of the issues not raised—would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to publish at the earliest possible date a White Paper summarising the recommendations of the Radcliffe Report and indicating which recommendations, in whole or in part, the Government accept?

I will certainly convey the hon. Member's suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will announce his plans for the future for the London Museum.

I have had some exploratory discussions with representatives of the London Museum Trustees, the City of London and the London County Council. It is too early to say what the outcome will be.

Will the Financial Secretary bear in mind that this is a rather favourable moment for integrating the respective interests of the London Museum Trustees, the London County Council and the City Corporation? If the hon. Gentleman could use his good offices to bring about some integration of these efforts to provide a museum worthy of the Metropolis, it would be appreciated.

I am grateful for the hon. Member's interest in this matter. Any help which I can give towards the success of these discussions will be freely given.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by the Committee on Consumer Protection.

I understand that the Committee has received a number of written submissions which it is studying and that it has begun to take oral evidence.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the decision by the Committee to investigate the safety standards of certain products because of the undue danger risks said to be involved will be received by many people with a good deal of satisfaction? In view of the concern about oil-fired heaters, which has been accentuated by the recent tragedy, will everything be done to expedite the investigation and the report?

I am sure that the Committee will take note of what the hon. Member has said. With regard to expediting the report, it is important for the Committee to study this and other subjects most carefully before arriving at its recommendations.

asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he is making to be accompanied at the proposed Summit Conference by representatives from countries of the Commonwealth other than the United Kingdom in order to assist in any discussions which may take place of matters of concern to such countries.

I have been asked to reply.

None, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the right hon. Gentleman on 24th November, no requests have been received from other Commonwealth Governments for their representatives to accompany him to a Summit Conference. We shall continue to keep other Commonwealth Governments informed about plans for a Summit Conference. We also look forward to a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London before long. In all the circumstances, we do not feel that arrangements of the kind the right hon. Gentleman contemplates are in fact called for.

I was made aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister could not be present this afternoon. May I put this supplementary question to the Leader of the House? In the event of a Summit Conference coming to fruition and questions other than European questions coming under consideration—for example, matters concerning the Pacific and the Commonwealth countries—is is not desirable that, in addition to President de Gaulle and Dr. Adenauer, and even President Eisenhower, who are quite lukewarm about the Commonwealth of Nations, some Commonwealth representatives should be present? Or are we to understand that the Summit Conference will be confined exclusively to a consideration of European issues?

No, Sir. I can give no general assurance of that type. After consulting my right hon. Friend, ample opportunity will be taken to consult Commonwealth countries about any matters arising which affect their interests.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Monckton Commission's terms of reference will enable it to hear evidence from persons living outside the Federation; whether the Commission will be empowered to hear evidence as to the economic possibilities of association between Nyasaland and the East African High Commission Territories; and whether the Commission will be entitled to evaluate such evidence and make a report thereon.

I have been asked to reply.

On all such matters it will be for the Commission to decide, in the light of its terms of reference, what evidence it wishes to receive. As regards the last part of the Question, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said in the House.

Is the Leader of the House aware that the reply of the Prime Minister has caused grave disquiet and is looked on as being highly ambiguous? Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the speech which the Governor of Nyasaland made the day before yesterday in which he said that he took the view that federation must be continued as the only form of economic association practicable? Are we to take it that the Commission will have to accept the same preconceived ideas at which, apparently, the Governor has already arrived?

I think that we must rely on the terms of reference which my right hon. Friend has announced. From my right hon. Friend's statement in the House, I would say that it was clear to me that the Commission will be free in practice to hear all points of view, from whatever quarter on whatever subject, although we thought it right to make terms of reference which accord with what we regard as the object of the 1960 review. Subject to that, it would be for the Commission to decide whether within its terms of reference it could take the type of evidence which the hon. Member desires.

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is all very well to hear evidence from any quarter on any subject, but there is not much point in that if the Commission cannot deliberate on the evidence which is submitted. Has the right hon. Gentleman absolutely nothing to add by way of explaining the Prime Minister's statement the other day?

No, Sir. The Prime Minister answered a variety of questions on the matter. This has been the subject of conversations, and I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's interpretation of the terms of reference.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that the ambiguity and intransigence of the Prime Minister is because of the pressure brought upon him by Sir Roy Welensky?

No, Sir. I do not think things run quite like that. The Prime Minister is working within the terms of the original Constitution and the forthcoming 1960 review.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the views expressed in Scotland that the Church of Scotland representative on the Monckton Commission does not represent the majority views of the Church or the people; and what steps he intends to take to make the Commission more truly representative of the Scottish interests concerned.