asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the present plans of the History of Parliament Trust for investigating, writing and publishing the History of Parliament, indicating the scope of the proposed work, in view of the recent Report of the Public Accounts Committee about it.

The limited scope of this project, as the trustees are at present able to foresee it, is indicated in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee to which the hon. and learned Member refers. It lies with Parliament to decide whether any change should be made in the existing arrangements which govern the work of the Trust.

As the work is designed to be a permanent record of great national and international importance, not only for our own generation but for future generations, will the Chancellor look into the limitation which he has mentioned and see that what emerges is worthy of the work?

I have no control over the policy or the administration of the trustees. So far, I think, the only action that has been taken has been to promise them a grant of £360,000 over twenty years.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is to be a history of this Parliament or a history of the British Parliament with its antecedents in Scotland and England?

The right hon. Gentleman had better get into touch with the trustees on that point. I am not quite sure what limits they are going to set themselves in the scope of their work.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he is aware that recent advertisements by the History of Parliament Trust for Scottish assistants to work on the forthcoming History of Parliament require that such Scottish assistants must live in London, and that the remuneration offered is inadequate; and why these limitations are imposed on workers much of whose research work must necessarily be done in Scotland;

The administration and policy of the Trust are the responsibility of the trustees, to whom I must therefore refer the hon. and learned Gentleman.

As to Question No. 2, is it not essential that in a work of such great importance assistants of the very highest ability and training should be employed and that they should be adequately remunerated, as they are not being adequately remunerated at present?

That is precisely a matter for the trustees, because it falls within the policy and administration of their work.

Since this complaint has been made for the last 350 years, ever since James VI came to London, that Scots in London have not been adequately paid, can my right hon. Friend explain why they are still coming to London in their tens of thousands?

I think the rate of their coming is rather higher than my hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. Driberg.

May I not put a supplementary question on Question No. 3? Am I not entitled to a supplementary question on Question No. 3?

It is not a question of entitlement, as the hon. and learned Member knows.

Surely I am entitled to put a supplementary question to Question No. 3. Is the Chancellor aware that Scottish history did not begin—

The hon. and learned Gentleman apparently did not hear me. I called the next Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has received from the Royal Fine Art Commission to the suggestion that there shall be regional committees of the Commission.

The Commission has informed me that it doubts whether regional committees would provide the best means of dealing with the problem to which the hon. Member has called attention.

What does the Corn-mission think would be the best means?

I think the Commission feels that the matters with which it is dealing do not lend themselves to devolution of responsibility.

Apart from devolution of responsibility, does the Commission at any rate have adequate arrangements for being fully informed. in the various districts and regions, about the innumerable acts of vandalism which are occurring?

I understand the Commission feels that the present arrangements are broadly satisfactory.

Has not the Royal Fine Art Commission expressed anxiety about the gradual elimination of the scenic beauties and amenities of this country? Can it be said that the Commission is satisfied with the position? Is there not some room for more local activity?

That is a matter for the Commission. I did not say that the Commission was satisfied with the position, but I understand that it is broadly satisfied with the scope of its organisation and arrangements.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the continuing loss of foreign currency earnings and the long term damage to London as an international financial centre, he will reconsider his refusal to allow again the use of foreign importers' drafts.

I will certainly keep the possibility of lifting the ban on refinance credits in mind. I cannot, however, at present give any indication of when this may prove practicable.

I am grateful for the limited hope which the Chancellor has held out today, but does he not see something a little odd in a situation of virtually complete convertibility of sterling for foreigners leaving the way open for forward currency speculations, if people should be so foolish or shortsighted as to resort to it, while at the same time continuing to refuse to return to a long-standing traditional method of financing genuine international trading transactions?

One has to keep this matter in perspective, and, as is usual in these matters, there is a balance of considerations which should be remembered.

On a point of order. In view of the nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the recent Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Appropriation Accounts, indicating that the total amount of farming losses allowed against taxation in one year was about £13½ million, he will take steps to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income that the term "husbandry" in Section 526 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, should be limited to that carried on on a commercial basis, with a view to the realisation of profits.

I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion, but I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

While it is appreciated that the Chancellor cannot anticipate his Budget statement, in the course of his secret lucubrations in the next few months will he examine this serious and extensive abuse of tax law and its very deleterious effect on agriculture?

I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion and I will also note his further observations.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many farmers not solely engaged in agriculture claim relief of taxation on account of losses sustained arising from farming.

I regret that the information is not available.

I am not surprised at that. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there are quite a number of people who engage in this practice and purchase farms, though they are not interested in agriculture, only for the purpose of gaining because of losses? Is it not time we stopped this racket, this jiggery-pokery, on the part of a number of people, of which he is well aware?

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to use the expression "jiggery-pokery" in connection with all farmers who have some other commercial activity as well as their farms.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a bit of a racket for a person to purchase a farm, although not interested in agriculture, solely for the purpose of gaining because of the losses that are sustained? Is not this a most undesirable practice?

I should want full details of the cases which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind before I should care to express an opinion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will appoint a committee to investigate costs of distribution, both in money and manpower, and to make recommendations for reducing the gap between production costs and the prices paid by the public: and if he will make a statement.

I doubt whether such a committee would produce useful results on such a general matter. The best way of ensuring efficiency and economy in distribution costs is through healthy fair competition, and that is what we are anxious to encourage.

Since out of 23¼million people engaged in civilian employment 7 million are in the distributive, finance and miscellaneous groups, and in view of the staggering differences in some trades between factory prices and shop prices, does not my right hon. Friend think that something might be done to narrow those gaps and so reduce the cost of living?

I am all for a great many things being done to narrow those gaps as far as possible, but what I take leave to doubt is whether the setting up of a committee to consider a very general matter such as this would produce specific results.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, bearing in mind that about £5,000 million capital profits were made on industrial shares in 1959, he will institute an inquiry as to the desirability of introducing a capital gains tax.

The arguments for and against this form of tax were examined at length by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income which reported in 1955.

Will the Chancellor bear in mind that it was in the early 1950s that the Royal Commission made this investigation and that there was also a minority report which came out very strongly in favour of a tax on capital profits? Will the Chancellor consider introducing a tax on capital profits, as it seems very inequitable that many workers by hand and brain should be taxed quite savagely while there remains a privileged small minority of shareholders and large property owners who are completely immune from taxation on their gains?

Important matters of that kind must be kept under review, but the hon. Member has quoted from one period and I ask him to remember that there are apt to be periods when capital losses are apt to be just as frequent as capital profits.

Does not the Chancellor recognise that in the present state of industrial relations, with some extremely low wages being paid, the vast unearned capital gains which have been made are highly provocative, particularly since they do not bear tax? Secondly, in his capacity as guardian of the public revenue, will he recognise that all experience of the past few years and past few Budgets shows that nothing causes more depredations of the revenue received by the Treasury than this totally vicious taxation anomaly as between income and capital and the ingenious ways of getting out of income into capital?

I will take note of what the right bon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will extend the provisions of Section 218 of the Finance Act, 1952, to enable a married man with children, whose wife is totally incapacitated by infirmity for the whole of the year of claim, to obtain tax reliefs for payments for a home help or the wages of a non-resident domestic employee.

I have noted my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, but I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that, among the many families in which the wife is so incapacitated that permanent domestic help has been and will indefinitely be necessary for many years, the financial burden falls most heavily on the poorer families who, because of lack of accommodation or other reasons, are not able to employ resident domestic help? In considering his Budget, will he see whether he cannot do something to help those people?

I am rather chary about agreeing to anything at this time of the year, except the importance of my saying as little as possible on almost everything, but I will take note of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.

Since we have pressed this and similar Amendments to Finance Bills in recent years, will the Chancellor consult some of his hon. Friends on the possibility that they might vote for some of those Amendments to future Finance Bills instead of merely raising the matter at Question Time?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what immediate plans he has for moving Government offices from London to those places where unemployment is high or imminent; and when he last discussed this question with the appropriate Civil Service staff side representatives.

A programme for the removal of certain Government offices from London was agreed with the National Staff Side and is still being completed; and the choice of new locations under this programme, or in connection with any other move of a Government office, takes account of local employment situations. The dispersal policy was last the subject of correspondence with the National Staff Side in 1958.

Is the Chancellor not aware that on 18th January there were 1,342 juveniles unemployed in the County of Durham? Many of them were boys. One of the reasons is the shortage of suitable variations in employment. In addition, the figure conceals the misemployment of young people who are doing jobs below their talents. Does the Chancellor not think that the Government should set an example in this respect to encourage private industry to bring offices to the County of Durham?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of dispersal where one can achieve it, but the dispersal of whole Government Departments raises fairly long-term problems that have to be looked at quite a time ahead.

Will the Chancellor bear in mind that there is high unemployment in Falmouth? We have a wonderful climate which I am sure civil servants would appreciate.

The possibility of moving the Treasury to Falmouth might make a personal appeal to me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his latest estimates of the yield from stamp duties on share transfers.

My Budget estimate that stamp duties as a whole would yield £68 million, included an estimate of £35 million for the yield of stamp duties on share transfers. It is clear that this estimate will be exceeded, but I am not in a position to say by how much.

I am not asking the Chancellor to anticipate anything about anything, but would he notice that some reduction of these duties would be a great incentive to the wider sharing of property and shares in this country?

Once again I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said, which I think is very similar to what he said at this time last year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has had from industry to his campaign for lower prices.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the results of his recent appeals for lower prices.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent his appeal for lower prices has been successful.

I would refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Members for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) and Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) on 26th January.

But was that answer not very disappointing? As the Chancellor has made a large number of appeals in the last six months on this point, is he really satisfied with the response so far? Can he give any concrete examples of reductions in prices?

I am never satisfied. If I had time I could give concrete examples. What I feel fairly satisfied about is that my statements have had some effect in maintaining the stability of the price level which we are still enjoying.

Is the Chancellor aware that all my hon. Friends are anxious that he should take time now to give us some of those examples?

Will the Chancellor not be perfectly frank with the House and tell us what we have all read, that employers have given him dusty answers in his appeal for price reductions? Is he not aware that, according to the cost of living index, far from prices coming down, they have gone up in recent months? Will he give some indication as to when he thinks the time will be more favourable than the present for price reductions to be made?

I certainly do not consider that I have had dusty answers from the industrial organisations which I have approached. My object has been to encourage the maintenance of the present stability. I believe that my statements have made increases less common than they otherwise would have been, and we are still enjoying stability. I did not ask for a price freeze any more than I have asked for a wage freeze. Nor did I ask for a reduction in prices right across the board. What I did ask for was that those who were succeeding in getting benefits from increased productivity should share those benefits with the consumer.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain in the simplest possible terms how his campaign for lower prices is assisted by raising the Bank Rate? Does not that set a bad example to other people who want to raise things too?

I think one of the reasons, among others, for raising the Bank Rate was to maintain our present stability in prices.

What is the use of appealing to industry to lower its prices when fuel and power, on which the ultimate cost of everything depends, is supplied by nationalised industries which keep raising their charges? Should not the nationalised industries set an example in this matter by increasing production and lowering their prices?

I must remind my hon. and gallant Friend that what I was asking for was that the benefits arising from increases in productivity should be shared. The first thing that has to be achieved is an increase in productivity.

Would not my right hon. Friend recognise that he personally could make the most massive contribution to the lowering of prices by joining the "Nabarro Lobby" on Purchase Tax?

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) that the prices of the nationalised industries have risen a good deal less than those of private industry and has dealt suitably with his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), will he answer this question? In view of the very big increase in profits in the past few months and the obvious expectations of still further increases in profits as shown by the present level of equity prices on the Stock Exchange, does not the Chancellor feel that part of these increased profits ought to be passed on to the consumer in the shape of lower prices?

That is exactly what I said: I said that the benefits of increased productivity should be shared with the consumer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for encouraging lower prices.

In a free economy, the main influence in any process of lowering prices must be the forces of competition. The Government can contribute by regulating the level of demand so as to avoid overloading the economy, and this is my steady objective. Success, however, will depend, on the co-operation of other sections of the community. For this reason, I have urged managements to make full use of opportunities to reduce their prices and have pointed out the dangers of an unrestrained pursuit of higher wages and salaries and profits. We have succeeded in preserving price stability for nearly two years now, and I propose to continue the policies which have been followed in that time.

As now after 8½ years of this Government prices are at an all-time high record, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether it is his ambition to stabilise them at that all-time record, or will he say when the promises of reduced prices are to take effect? Cannot he do any better than he has done?

I am always hoping to do still better, but I think we must not underrate the value of the stability in prices which has been a marked feature of the economy for almost two years.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now considered the recommendations made to him by the National Union of Manufacturers regarding the reduction and simplification of Purchase Tax; and whether he will now make a statement concerning his future purchase tax intentions.

I must once again remind my hon. Friend that I cannot anticipate my Budget decisions.

Has my right hon. Friend observed the choice of words of the National Union of Manufacturers,

"…That the reduction and simplification of Purchase Tax must remain an objective of all Budgets until the total abolition of this most undesirable tax can be achieved."

I cannot anticipate this coming Budget or any future Budget statements.

As this is the beginning of the season when the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) keeps putting down these Questions, can we have his assurance that he will line himself up behind us in the Lobby when we press these things on the Finance Bill?

That is inciting me to insubordination.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the concern felt by violinists that the bow-hair for their instruments is not subject to Purchase Tax when purchased in a tail of horse-hair, but when such bow-hair has been wound into a small hank adequate for re-hairing one bow, such hank attracts Purchase Tax at 25 per cent.; why a horse-hair hank is taxed, whereas a horse-hair tail is untaxed; and, having regard to the discrimination which is caused against amateur musicians, notably learners, whether he will restore equality by removing all bow-hair for violins from the Purchase Tax Schedules.

A tail of horse-hair is no more than raw material; a hank of such hair selected and prepared for repair of a violin bow is an accessory to a musical instrument. I am not aware that this sensible distinction has given rise to any concern or confusion except in my hon. Friend's mind.

Would my right hon. Friend explain to the House his special interest in tax fiddling? Is it really desirable that he should continue discrimination in this minute fashion between two articles which for all practical purposes are exactly the same? Is he not adding confusion to confusion with each successive Budget?

I am very glad to note that my hon. Friend has an interest in violins. I thought that he belonged to the wind rather than the string section.

We now seem to be busy with the slow movement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the stand upon which a saxophonist rests his saxophone is subject to Purchase Tax at 25 per cent. as is the saxophone, whereas the stand upon which a saxophonist rests his musical score is not subject to tax; why this discrimination exists as between stands for the saxophones and stands for the musical scores; and whether he will redress the grievances of saxophonists in this regard by abolition of all Purchase Tax on all stands whether used for saxophone rests or for musical scores.

The charge under Group 19 applies to musical instruments and accessories thereto. A stand for an instrument is clearly an accessory to that instrument. Saxophone players rejoice, I am sure, that reason has been found not to tax their music stands as well.

Would not they rejoice far more if all the stands they used were removed from the incidence of Purchase Tax? How does the Chancellor account for this brainwave of bureaucratic Bumbledom inside the Customs and Excise Department which is now even seeking to distinguish between wooden stands used by musicians for substantially the same purpose? Is that reasonable?

I think it is perfectly reasonable. My hon. Friend, whose vocal powers we have had reason to admire, has overlooked the fact that not all performers are instrumentalists.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for the balance of the Public Works Loan Board's outstanding debt to be used as the nucleus of the capital from which the Board could continuously re-lend while at the same time allowing the Board greater freedom in its lending policy.

No, Sir. I do not consider that a change is called for in the present policy governing lending by the Public Works Loan Board.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is increasingly urgent to help efficient local authorities who should have greater access to funds at rates of interest more in keeping with the needs of the services they have to undertake? Will he find means to provide greater stability for local government finance, so that they can get away from the tremendous amount of short-term debt being built up which is worrying them a great deal?

In regard to the first part of that supplementary question, I do not think the course suggested would be a good one. It would lead to the kind of distortion we knew twelve or thirteen years ago when hon. Members opposite were in charge of our affairs.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will list under each Department of State the number of permanent officials in the Department who are paid more than the Minister in charge.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, for each Government Department, the number of civil servants who are paid at a higher rate than the Minister and the number paid at a higher rate than the Parliamentary Secretary or Under-Secretary.

I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list showing for each Department the number of officials who are paid more than the Minister in charge; the total number of such officials is 52. The extraction of comparable Departmental figures for officials who are paid more than a Parliamentary Secretary would involve extensive inquiries. A rough estimate of the total number of such officials is 4,500.

In anticipation of my right hon. Friend's Written Reply, will he state whether he knows of any reputable organisation in which the executive head is paid less than his subordinates, or is this House to interpret the present salary structure as symbolic of the transfer of power from the political head to the permanent head of a Department?

My hon. Friend must not provoke me into a discussion of this question. It is not easy to draw a close analogy between Ministers and civil servants in this respect. To take one distinction only, there is quite a difference in the security of tenure between the two.

There is obviously no party issue on this question. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one is likely to accuse any hon. Member on this side of the House of an immediate financial interest in the question? Nevertheless, will the Chancellor take very seriously the point which has just been put to him by his hon. Friend? It is an undesirable state of affairs. Will he look into it in the interests of public administration?

I agree that there is something in the point. I will take note of what both my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have said.

Will my right hon Friend also bear in mind the fact that, if a Minister from a large Department were paid according to ordinary standards of responsibility and the size of his Department, it is probable that Ministers' salaries would be between £15,000 and £20,000 a year?

My hon. Friend brings a blush to my cheek.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to provide additional staff at the British Museum to deal with the arrears of cataloguing in the Department of Manuscripts.

I have authorised the provision, in the next financial year, of the additional staff which the Trustees of the Museum have requested for this purpose.

Is the Chancellor aware that the British Museum contains one of the finest collections of Hebrew books in the world, but that no Hebrew catalogue has been published since 1894, and that there is not even a card index of those books which have been acquired in the succeeding sixty years? Will his approval make it possible to do this cataloguing?

I was not aware of the particular case to which the hon. Member has referred, but I know there is a large backlog of cataloguing. It was with the object of helping to tackle that problem that I approved these additional places.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will adjust the rules relating to expenses allowable in assessing liability to Income Tax under Schedule E, in order to remove the anomalies which at present exist as between those who are assessed for Income Tax under Schedule E and those who are assessed under Schedule D.

The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that taxpayers who are in receipt of salaries and wages are at a disadvantage and are treated more adversely than those assessed under Schedule D? It is a long time since the Royal Commission reported, and there has been rather a long close season. Can the right hon. Gentleman's reference to his Budget statement be regarded as an assurance that he will look into this matter again before making that statement?

I am very cautious about accepting any commitment at all, but I think I can safely say that between now and the Budget I shall be looking again at everything which I have already looked at, so I can give the hon. Member the assurance for which he has asked. On the other hand, I would ask him to appreciate that there is a difference in the nature of the offices assessed under Schedule E and Schedule D, respectively.

Will my right hon. Friend take note of suggestions repeatedly made by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the effect that he ought to take powers to change taxation from time to time during the year by way of affirmative Resolution, which would enable him repeatedly to enjoy anticipating his Budget statement? Cannot we get away from this absurd period of purdah of four months preceding the annual Budget?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost to his Department of collecting taxes in the financial year 1958–59.

About £65 million for the Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue together.

Will the Chancellor bear in mind the possibility of simplifying the tax structure so that we can reduce this figure in the coming Budget?

That is something that I am always looking at and hoping that we shall find ways of achieving, but the costs of these Departments, if considered as a percentage of the revenue collected, cannot be regarded as entirely unsatisfactory. They are 1·38 per cent in the case of the Inland Revenue Department and 0·86 per cent. in the case of the Customs and Excise Department, which compare well with such rates as I have been able to obtain in respect of any other country.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that this is one piece of State enterprise which makes a profit?

I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to announce the name of the successor to Lord Cohen as Chairman of the Committee on Prices, Productivity and Incomes.

I am not yet ready to make a statement.

Has the Minister tried very hard to get a successor to Lord Justice Cohen, or are the higher members of the judiciary deterred by the sad experience of Lord Justice Devlin? Would it not be better to allow this nebulous body to sink back into the oblivion from which it should never have emerged?

I do not agree with the tenor of the hon. Member's question, but I am giving careful consideration to this matter, not only as to its composition but as to its rôle, and other aspects.

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman gave me that answer in November, in the last Parliament, can he say when he thinks he will be ready to give an answer?

I am afraid that I cannot do so yet. The answer I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) was slightly different from that which I have given today.

Has Lord Radcliffe, who has alternated with Lord Cohen as chairman of most of our financial inquiries for the last few years, removed himself from consideration for this appointment because of the nature of his last Report?

No. I have very great admiration for the abilities and the work of Lord Radcliffe.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in view of the recent 1 per cent. increase in the Bank Rate, if he will give an assurance that he will not authorise a further rise in the interest on municipal housing loans;

As I explained in my Reply on 17th November last to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), I do not consider that it would be right to take steps to insulate local authorities from the effects of prevailing levels of interest rates.

Is the Chancellor aware that an extra 1 per cent. on the housing loan would add 8s. 6d. a week for sixty years to the interest charges on a typical multi-storey flat costing £2,390, which have already been increased by 21s. 3d. a week since 1951? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the effect on families and young couples on the housing list, and cannot he see the cut in the housing programme which would certainly result? Will he reconsider the question?

To keep this matter in perspective, may I say that the increase in the rate of lending by the Public Works Loan Board, made following the recent increase in the Bank Rate in the section of the longest-term borrowing, which covers most of the borrowing by local authorities, has been not 1 per cent. but ⅓ per cent.

In view of the difficulties of local authorities in this matter, can the right hon. Gentleman say how the rates of interest charged to them compare with the rates charged to Colvilles, B.M.C. and other people who borrow public funds?

What I can say is that in these cases the Government fix the rate of interest as near as they can to the comparable rate of interest current in the market.

Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is higher or lower than the rate charged to Colvilles and B.M.C.?

These rates were fixed to be comparable with the rates in the market at the time the loans were made, and that will continue to be the policy. In some cases the rates may be higher and in some cases lower. They were comparable with the current rates in the market at the time the loans were made.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the combination of these higher rates with a high cost of living has put some local authorities in the position that if they pay current prices for land and loans and other things, it is impossible for them to rent the houses at a price which our people can afford?

I am sure that the best service we can render to the constituents of the hon. Lady and of other hon. Members is to do our utmost to make sure that we keep the economy in balance.

Since it was officially said that one reason for putting up the Bank Rate was the need to counter speculation on the Stock Exchange, is it because of the failure of the Government to counter that speculation that local authorities have to pay more for their essential borrowing and that rents are rising to a level beyond the ability of some families to pay—as the Minister of Housing knows from cases recently referred to him from my constituency and from other constituencies?

I have already given the reasons for the recent increase in the Bank Rate.

Will the Chancellor say whether he has made a corresponding increase in the rate at which the Government are lending to building societies, which was lower than that for the Public Works Loan Board?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to put down a Question on that subject.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated yield in the current financial year for licensed-vehicle duty and fuel-oil duty paid by the passenger transport industry.

It is £3 million from vehicle excise licence duty and £30 million from hydrocarbon oil duty.

I do not expect the Chancellor to anticipate his Budget statement, but does he appreciate that there is a growing volume of opinion that these pernicious taxes on bus tickets ought to be swept away? Will he agree that the growing congestion on the roads in the rush hours and the increasing number of road casualties make it even more urgent that he should remove this taxation from the passenger industry, and will he bear these factors in mind as well as other arguments which have been used in previous years?

I will bear in mind the factors which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I agree with him about the seriousness of the two problems to which he has called my attention.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the financial aid now being arranged for motor car and shipping firms will be in the form of unconditional grants or will be made in exchange for stock.

Some motor car firms will be given assistance under the Distribution of Industry Acts or under the Local Employment Bill when enacted. The exact form of the assistance has still to be negotiated, but where any repayment obligation is incurred by a firm, adequate security will be arranged. There are no proposals before me for financial aid to shipping firms.

As there are many forecasts of outright free gifts to the shipping companies, and in some cases to the motor car companies, will the Chancellor bear in mind the precedent set by previous Conservative Governments, who invested in the Suez Canal and in Middle East oil, and see whether we cannot give assistance by way of purchasing stock in these firms so that the taxpayer may have some return when profits are made?

There is not much analogy between the point to which the hon. Gentleman refers and the Local Employment Bill, but he will have studied the provisions of that Bill and understand the place that grants and loans, respectively, have in that legislation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of financial assistance provided in the form of subsidies and loans to private industry and agriculture since 1951; and what sums have been returned to the Government either in capital or interest.

Between 1st April, 1951, and 31st March, 1959, subsidies to private industry and agriculture amounted to £2,311 million. In the same period, loans granted to private industry and agriculture amounted to £84 million and repayments of capital and interest, including repayments in respect of certain loans granted prior to 1st April, 1951, amounted to £38 million.

Are not these vast sums out of the taxpayer's pocket rather too high? Is this not rather lavish expenditure in view of the fact that only £38 million has been returned to the Exchequer? In view of the need for subsidies and loans to privately-owned industry, why do we have these complaints about investment in nationalised industries?

The main reason for the fact that only £38 million out of £84 million has been repaid is that, substantially, that is all that is yet due for repayment under the arrangements. As to whether the sum is too big or not, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in his Government's day there were enormous sums paid in subsidies and they did not produce the results which my Government have produced.

Would my right hon. Friend give the House the amount collected in taxation from the profits which these farmers and industrialists have produced over the same period? We should then see that many thousands, indeed, millions, more was received than was paid in these subsidies.

I could not give my hon. Friend the precise sum, but I can say that I have benefited a little from that source.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what workshop equipment is provided for the use of engineers employed by the Customs and Excise Department on the maintenance of their launches at Gravesend; what was the cost to the Customs and Excise Department of repairs, overhauls and other work carried out by contractors on these launches for the year ended 31st March, 1959; and whether, in the interests of economy, more effective use will be made of the Customs and Excise Department's own engineers.

The answers to the hon. Member's Questions are—the hand and small power tools needed to carry out maintenance work; £10,825; the present method of employing these engineers is already considered to be the most economical.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that view is not shared by many of the people who know this unit? Is it not totally uneconomic to have men who are qualified and capable of doing the job if they had the tools and at the same time involve the Exchequer in large sums by way of contracts?

If the facts were as stated by the hon. Member, I would agree with him, but the fact is that this unit consists of a staff of five whose functions are emergency repairs, top overhaul of engines and day-to-day maintenance, and it has been found more economic to put larger repairs out than to maintain a fully-equipped maintenance yard. If the hon. Member still feels that the facts in his knowledge conflict with what I have said, I should be glad if he would write to me on the subject.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the amount of post-war credits repaid, to the latest convenient date, on the grounds of hardship.

I regret that this information is not available.

Is that not an extraordinary statement? After all the difficulty we had in persuading my right hon. Friend to define hardship—and I congratulate him on succeeding in defining it—surely we ought to know how much has been repaid? I was hoping to ask him to define it a little more widely.

The explanation, as I think my hon. Friend can imagine, is the work that would be entailed. We do not analyse our central records in that particular way as between one type of recipient and another. As he knows, the actual payment is not centralised. It would involve a tremendous amount of work if we were to analyse all these kinds of payments in ways which would permit me to answer all the questions which hon. Members ask me.

In view of the great interest taken in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to obtain the information? Is he aware that the total amount of staff needed to do this work would probably be smaller than that employed on getting Answers to Questions about Purchase Tax asked by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)? Is he aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House are disturbed about the operation of this scheme in relation to hardship, particularly in tying the payment in so many cases to the unemployability supplement? Is he aware that if he relaxed that part of the conditions he would relieve a little more hardship and be able to deal with some of the difficult personal cases of which hon. Members have knowledge?

I am glad to answer the question of the right hon. Member, and I am anxious to do everything I can to get the administration of this difficult bit of work as good as we can make it and as fair as we can make it. I am afraid that strictly to separate all these individual payments now from our total national record would involve a tremendous amount of work. I am anxious to keep the House in touch. What I shall do, in reply to my hon. Friend and to the right hon. Member, is to see if there is any way in which I can give an approximate figure. Perhaps it would be a little rough and ready, but I shall see what I can do.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to improving the market value of Government stocks, he will instruct the Estate Duty Office to accept in settlement of death duties Government stocks at a value half-way between their issued value and market value at the time of death, where such stocks are standing below their issued value at the time of death.

I am afraid not. The right of a holder to surrender stock for the purposes of Estate Duty is a fundamental condition of a stock determined at the time of issue.

Would my right hon. Friend think about the example of Victory Bonds, which have been successful in showing some reduction of the National Debt as well as maintaining a reasonable price for Government stock? Might that not be a matter for further consideration?

If my memory holds good, I think the right to surrender Victory Bonds was contained in the prospectus at the time of their issue.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement regarding the consultations he has had with the World Bank regarding the Aswan Dam project.

Since the breakdown of the negotiations in 1956 there has been no proposal for an International Bank loan for this project.

Has the Chancellor given thought to the possibility, in order to explain to the Egyptians why we were not able to help them, of inviting the World Bank to make a bulk purchase of Sir Anthony Eden's memoirs?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make changes in the home trade limits to allow fishermen from the port of Lowestoft to obtain duty-free tobacco.

I do not think any change in these long standing rules would be justified. The existing limits apply to fishermen from Lowestoft in the same way as to those from any other port in the United Kingdom.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that this will cause great disappointment to fishermen at Lowestoft and other ports who have long distances to go and are out at sea for greater periods than heretofore? Will he look at this matter again to see if he can change his mind?

I should be surprised to know that the present limits give widespread dissatisfaction. They have been current for thirty-five years and were agreed with the British Trawlers Federation. If my hon. Friend has any specific information to the contrary, perhaps he will give it to me.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) what limit he has fixed to the total which may be granted to any one landlord under the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959; and

The Act gives landlords and owner-occupiers the right to a grant of up to £155 for each dwelling improved, subject to compliance with certain simple conditions. There is no power in the Act to impose further limitations on the lines suggested, nor would I consider them desirable.

The Minister has not answered question No. 40 at all. I want to know if he thinks it justifiable under this Act to give any one landlord a sum of over £30,000, as has been given to Lord Cowdray, and £1,203 to the Duke of Norfolk, at a time when at the Dispatch Box the Minister tells local authorities to impose a means test for council house tenants?

I have no specific knowledge of the cases the hon. Member has mentioned, but I am entitled to ask him—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—whether he supported the Labour Government in 1949 in advising local authorities that an applicant's financial resources are wholly irrelevant in considering the applicant's qualifications.

I should like to answer the Minister. Certainly I did. [Interruption.] It is as well that the right hon. Gentleman should know that a Labour Government provided councils with very generous subsidies and we do not mind if there is fair play between landlords and tenants.

Order. This is my fault, but there was so much noise that I could not keep the Minister in order. I think we should maintain a interrogatory form of progress.

I should like to continue to enlighten the Minister.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the number of the grants made to owner occupiers and landlords, respectively, under the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, and the respective amounts involved.

The information furnished to me by local authorities does not distinguish between grants to owner-occupiers and grants to landlords.

The purpose of my Question was to ask the Minister to get this information. That is the purpose of his being there, to supply us with information in answer to questions which we put. It would be a simple matter if he wanted to get the information. Is he afraid that if he got it it would be useful to me but would produce difficulties for him?

I have been considering obtaining that information, but the tenor of the hon. Member's Question appears to be that a result would be achieved which would show the principal sufferers to be the tenants.

Will the Minister now get the information?

That is exactly what I am considering. I am extremely anxious to stimulate the obtaining of these grants by landlords as well as by owner occupiers.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies.

On a point of order. Before the Colonial Secretary makes his statement, may I raise this point? The Minister of Housing and Local Government made a rather alarming statement. He said that he was getting certain information and then went on to impute to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) a certain motive by talking about the tenor of his Question. Is it in order for a Minister to refuse to give information simply because he does not like the tenor of the Question?

To do so would not be in order, but I did not hear the Minister declining to give information on that ground.