asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much Post Office savings have increased since he introduced the tax exemption on the first £300 of savings.

Between July, 1956, when the Income Tax concession first applied to the first £15 of interest, and the end of 1959 the amount remaining invested in the Post Office Savings Bank fell by £32 million.

Is the Minister aware that, in spite of these figures, the excellent reform that he introduced has encouraged small investors to invest their money in Britain and that this is a very useful thing indeed?

I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is a fact that after the concession was introduced there was a distinct reduction in the rate of outflow of funds from the Bank, and, indeed, if one considers the year 1959, the amount remaining invested in the Post Office Savings Bank increased by £32 million.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider introducing legislation to provide Income Tax exemption on the first £300 of loans by individuals to local authorities.

No, Sir.

Since it is good that, again, small investors should invest their money with local authorities, will the Economic Secretary ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to consider whether he cannot apply the argument on Post Office savings to local authority savings on this scale?

No, Sir. The two cases are quite distinct. The object of the concession, so far as the Post Office Savings Bank and trustee savings banks are concerned, was to encourage national savings, which are small savings lent to the Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 47 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, which precludes new assessments after a period of six years where no effort at concealment or fraud has been attempted, deductions have been made in the amounts paid during 1959 in settlement of post-war credits assessed and notified to the payees in 1945–46; by what authority this has been done; and if he will make a statement.

I have written to the hon. Member about this case.

While I admit that the letter is a very long one explaining the position very fully, may I say at once that, so far as the question of the legal position of post-war credits is concerned, I am quite sure that that is in order?

On a point of order. I did not hear the Minister's Answer to Question No. 3.

I said that I had written to the hon. Member about this case.

Further to that point of order. There is no case in Question No. 3.

I do not think that the House would bless me if I attempted to read the letter, which, as the hon. Member said, was a fairly long one, full of information, but I am glad that the hon. Member feels that it covers the points.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a constituent of the hon. Member for Wallsend who had his Income Tax assessment completed for the year 1945–46 was informed, in December, 1959, that in 1945–46 there was an underpayment of £34 14s. 6d. Income Tax, and that his claim for post-war credits had been reduced by £31 10s.; and since this notification was given 13 years after the assessment and no concealment or fraud has been indicated, whether he will reconsider this decision and pay the amount deducted from the post-war credits.

I have written to the hon. Member about this case.

I just want to say that I am quite satisfied about the letter. Nevertheless, I think that in view of what was in it and of how the matter has been investigated it ought to be publicised. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was in it?"] I want to put it to the Minister that the letter itself is not as fully satisfactory as it might be, but there is one thing which it does admit, which is that mistakes have been made by the Revenue Department on several occasions, that the Department is paying back £5 10s. to my constituent because of those mistakes and that the Department apologises and admits them. I hope that this kind of thing will not happen again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I just want to say this to the Minister—

Order. I do not want unduly to trouble the hon. Member, but I must require him to ask questions and not to make statements.

Is the Financial Secretary satisfied that during this period that this work has been done those concerned have been as satisfied as they might have been? I have any number of complaints that people have not received notification of these deductions from post-war credits to meet underpayment of tax and, years later, have found that they have no post-war credits left?

I apologise unreservedly to you Mr. Speaker, and to the House for the mistake I made just new. Very briefly, the position, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is this. About £29 of tax was unpaid for 1945–46, so, to that extent, the post-war credits question never arose. A small amount of the underpayment of the previous year was set against the sum and, as the hon. Gentleman says, a repayment of the balance of £5 10s. will soon be made. I am sure that this is the right way to deal with this matter, and that the hon. Gentleman can feel satisfied.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent it would facilitate administration if Schedule A tax were abolished on all rented property and the net income therefrom assessed under Schedule D, instead of as at present taxing one source of income under two Schedules of the Income Tax Acts.

There is not enough information for an estimate, but the cost of administration would almost certainly be greater than at present.

Would my hon. Friend agree that it would be generally welcomed by all professions in the property business if rented property were to be assessed under one Schedule rather than under two, as at present—and, possibly, without any loss of revenue?

My hon. Friend's Question refers specifically to administration, and the point is that the administrative costs would be expected to rise under his proposal, because the particulars of maintenance expenditure would have to be examined in every case.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that Schedule A tax is open to objections on grounds other than those of administrative complexity? For example, a landlord may not spend anything at all on repairs and maintenance but still get the statutory allowance. On the other hand, the owner-occupier may spend a great deal more than the statutory allowance but, because he does not know the law, may not reclaim what he is entitled to. Would not the simplest thing be to abolish Schedule A tax altogether?

That raises rather wider issues. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put some of those other questions on the Order Paper.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the fact that incomes have approximately trebled since the pre-war days, in order to meet a much higher cost of living, he will increase the Income Tax allowance for married couples to a proportionate level and, at the same time, give effect to proportionate increases for unmarried persons.

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

Does the Minister realise that these categories of Income Tax payers have been bearing an undue proportion of Income Tax contribution for a very long time? Does not he think that these allowances should be brought to a realistic level? Does not he realise that by doing so he would earn the gratitude of all?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not forget that even to raise the married man's allowance by £20 and the single man's allowance by £10 would cost £78 million in a full year, so the hon. Gentleman's proposal to increase the married man's allowance from £240 to £540 a year would be rather an expensive operation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the sacrifices, both economic and physical, made by National Service men in the defence of the country's commitments, he will abolish their liability to pay Income Tax.

No, Sir.

Does the Financial Secretary realise that this appeal is being made for National Service men? As they are willing to make many sacrifices, including the supreme sacrifice, in defending the country's interests, does he not think that something ought to be done to excuse them from Income Tax?

We should always be very careful in this House of breaching the rule of universality in the matter of tax liability.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions there have been with the appropriate Civil Service staff side representatives concerning the possible transfer of Government offices to Durham; and if he will make a statement.

There have been no such discussions. I have assured the hon. Member on a number of occasions, the Government will continue their efforts to find a suitable office for transfer to Durham.

This kind of Answer is becoming too silly for words. We have heard it before, and we are getting tired of it. What are the difficulties on the staff side of a Department about moving a Department to Durham? Does the staff side want to go or not? If it does not want to go, may I suggest that the hon. Gentleman apply the simple remedy of asking for volunteers to come to Durham, and thus relieve those who do not want to of the need to move?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a difficult matter. The decision to remove a large Department, or section of a Department, as far as Durham is obviously a big decision. I know the hon. Gentleman's concern in the matter, but there has really not been anything further to report since he led his deputation to my predecessor last summer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the unusually heavy taxation which is likely to be levied on United Kingdom shareholders in the Suez Canal Company as a result of having received a capital compensatory grant; and whether he will take steps to relieve them of this exceptional charge.

The Inland Revenue has been advised that what the shareholders receive is, in law, income, and not captial. As such, it is taxable in the same way as other income. My right hon. Friend does not think that any special relief would be justified.

Does the Financial Secretary realise that the public consider this as capital, and that it is a monstrous injustice that compensation given to people who have lost money in this way should be taxed?

I know of the concern of my hon. Friend and of many other hon. Members on this subject. The situation is, as I think my hon. Friend knows, that the distributions are not described as repayments of share capital, because the nominal value of the shares remains the same after distributions have been made, and the Inland Revenue has been advised that, in those circumstances, the distributions are taxable income in the hands of shareholders resident in this country. The question of exempting these distributions either by extra-statutory concession or by legislation was fully considered. I believe that the right decision has been taken but, of course, I note my hon. Friend's views.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in France this repayment, which is, in principle, a repayment of capital, is regarded as such, and is not subject to Income Tax? I agree that it is extremely unfair that the shareholders of this company, who have already suffered very considerably, should have insult added to injury by taxation on a capital gain.

I do not think that I can add to the Answer—which, I am sorry, may have seemed overlong—that I gave just now.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in view of the increased grant to the Arts Council this year, no arrangements have been made for the Covent Garden Opera to visit Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, I have no responsibility for the touring programme of Covent Garden. I understand, however, that although Covent Garden Opera is not visiting Manchester this year, Sadler's Wells played there for a week last May. During the next financial year Manchester will, in all probability, be visited once by Covent Garden and twice by Sadler's Wells.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is monstrously unfair that when extra money is given to the Arts Council, the Covent Garden Opera Company does not go to Manchester, where there is a large opera house in one of the most musical cities in the world?

I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend because, as I explained to him in the letter, there are very real physical and administrative difficulties about allowing a tour by the Covent Garden Opera Company. Quite apart from the size of provincial theatres—

Cannot they take the train?

Quite apart from the size of provincial theatres, there are very real administrative difficulties about moving such a very large company, with so much scenery.

Can we take it that the Financial Secretary's Answer does not imply that he is satisfied with the present miserable pittance paid to the Arts Council by the Exchequer—which is a disgrace to this affluent society in which we are now living—and the very miserable proportion of that pittance that goes to the Covent Garden Opera Company?

I advise the hon. Gentleman, if he likes, to attend the debate on this tomorrow.

I intend to.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take to ensure that hire-purchase companies which accept deposits from the public conform to certain minimum standards.

As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 26th November last, we are considering the desirability of new legislation for the protection of the public who deposit money with many kinds of businesses, including hire-purchase companies. This is a complex matter which will take time to resolve.

Has my hon. Friend noted the remarks of the Governor of the Bank of England at Liverpool on 12th February, and will he bear those remarks in mind?

Yes. I shall certainly do that.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that there is a great need for steps to be speeded up, as the public are getting robbed time and time again by the malpractices of many of these companies, about some of which I have written to the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not go so far as the hon. Lady has gone—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—for the simple reason that I think that what she said was somewhat exaggerated—but I certainly agree that this is a very important matter, and I can assure her that we shall reach a conclusion as soon as possible.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent it remains a qualification for the early repayment of post-war credits for the applicant to be in receipt of National Assistance.

One of the qualifications entitling a person to claim payment of his post-war credit is that he has been receiving National Assistance for a continuous period of twelve weeks ending after 7th April, 1959.

As this arrangement is denying repayment to many ex-miners whose health has been completely ruined by pneumoconiosis, will the hon. Gentleman again consider, with his right hon. Friend, the desirability of getting rid of this very mean qualification?

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that we are most carefully considering the case of the long-term sick, but I cannot, this afternoon, say anything beyond what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House are finding from their constituencies—that the biggest problem arises from tying the repayment of post-war credits to the unemployability supplement? This is causing very great hardship. Will he look at that point, in particular?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give consideration to extending postwar credits to the long-term sick who come outside the scope of present qualifications.

My right hon. Friend has this matter under consideration.

I have three constituents who have been permanently sick for the last six, three and two years. Cannot some action be taken to alleviate the plight of these unfortunate persons?

I have had many cases sent to me by hon. Members in all parts of the House in recent months. I cannot add to what I have said in answer to Questions earlier this afternoon.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is one outstanding category of persons in urgent need of their post-war credits and that there is overwhelming evidence from all hon. Members that they should be dealt with as early as possible?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the views frequently expressed from both sides of the House.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a White Paper setting out in detail the current rate of aid annually from public sources to private industry and agriculture in the forms of grants, subsidies, state-guaranteed loans, and research, respectively.

No, Sir. But I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a note of the estimated amounts for the current financial year.

That is not quite the point. Is the Minister aware that in the House we are getting, in dribs and drabs, this information about the amount of public assistance, as it was described by the noble Lords yesterday, given to privately-owned industry and agriculture? Could we not have, for the benefit of hon. Members on both sides of the House, an analysis showing exactly how much is being paid and what responsibility the Government have undertaken, in all the respects set out in the Question, to privately-owned industry and agriculture, showing the extent of State support to privately-owned industry and agriculture?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation in order to enable the amount of a pension which has been commuted to be raised in accordance with the increases in the actual pension authorised by legislation subsequent to the date of the pensioner's retirement.

No, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of pensioners who have commuted part, or nearly half, of their pensions are military pensioners who had to come back to this country to retire? They had to commute their pensions in order to find somewhere to live. An undertaking was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 11th November that he would look into this matter, particularly with reference to military pensioners. Does my hon. Friend's Answer today mean that that undertaking has been fulfilled and that the final answer of all Departments is, "No"?

My Answer means that the pension increase remains payable only on pensions and not on lump sum benefits. We ought to think very hard before we depart from that principle.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what authority his Department decided to arrange for the Secretary-General of the Arts Council, who has a salary of £3,800 per annum, a special pension, although he is over the qualifying age; and if, in view of this decision, he will now agree to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission that established civil

I ask the hon. Member to look at the table which will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is quite a big "drib or drab".

The Council decided that, since the Secretary-General was age-barred from its own pension scheme, it was reasonable to arrange to provide him with benefits which were broadly in line with the discretionary provision available for late entrants with special qualifications to certain public service schemes. The Treasury saw no reason to dissent.

As the decision to give a pension to this high-ranking officer was made with Treasury approval, but without Ministerial approval, at a time when we were being asked to tighten our belts, may I ask my hon. Friend when we shall implement the pledge given by us, when in Opposition, to those in the Civil Service and those living on small fixed incomes? When will our armour be shining bright again with regard to this pledge?

I think that the hon. Lady is widening the ambit of a Question which was fairly wide to start with. I have nothing to add to my Answer or to the correspondence which I have had with her on this subject.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total of loans and grants of public money offered or made in the last two years to the steel, cotton, motor car, aircraft and shipping industries; and what part of this total consisted of loans and grants, respectively.

Since 1st April, 1958, grants of about £30½ million and loans of £120 million have been offered to these industries; grants of about £600,000 have been issued, plus loans of £16 million.

Are not these staggeringly large figures of financial aid from the taxpayer to private enterprise? Is it the policy of the Conservative Party that these tens of millions should be handed over to private firms without the taxpayer receiving in return any share of the profits of the firms?

We cannot debate this matter now, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman—and this is a view with which I think he might sympathise—that it can be a mistake to be too theological about this. It is much better to look at the needs and problems of each industry in turn. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to put down Questions about them, he might well do so.

While always discounting excessive ventures into theology, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, from his experience as Economic Secretary—I think he was Economic Secretary—responsible for D.A.T.A.C., it was not Treasury policy in those days to have Treasury-appointed directors to look after the Treasury loans to these companies? Is it not a fact that, despite all that the Conservative Party told us at the election, the Treasury is going a long way towards buttressing up private enterprise with these loans? Should not the State, having shared the risks, share any profits?

I do not think that D.A.T.A.C. was in existence when I was Economic Secretary. In any case, the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is on a rather different matter. If he would like to put it on the Order Paper, I will gladly answer it at some other time.

Is the hon. Member aware that D.A.T.A.C. has been in existence continuously since 1945 and that he himself has written a number of letters to hon. Members, including some to me, explaining in great detail why D.A.T.A.C. turned down a particular proposition and why he was satisfied that D.A.T.A.C. was right to turn it down? Will he look at this matter again?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for refreshing my memory. That was a lapse of memory. If he wishes to put down a Question about D.A.T.A.C. directorships, he had better do so.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the abolition or substantial reduction of the transfer Stamp Duty on shares.

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

Is my hon. Friend aware that even a small reduction of, say, 1 per cent. in this duty would go a long way to encouraging us to become a nation of share owners and, moreover, would encourage employees to hold an investment in the firms for which they work?

As I said, my right hon. Friend will note my hon. Friend's suggestion. I cannot make any further comment this afternoon.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in enabling the trustee savings banks to meet the demand of the public for a limited cheque system.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he rejected the proposal of the trustee savings banks to introduce a cheque service for depositors.

My right hon. Friend has had this matter under consideration and I have recently written on his behalf to the chairman of the Trustee Savings Banks' Assocation explaining certain major difficulties which we see in introducing legislation for this purpose at the present time. But I have invited representatives of the association to come and discuss the matter with me and I should prefer to defer a statement until after I have heard whether, as I hope, they accept this invitation.

Is it not the case that this proposal, which is supported by the whole of the trustee savings banks movement, has been under consideration by the Chancellor for a year and that the letter which the hon. Member has written has been taken as a refusal by the association? If it is not, will he assure us that he will sympathetically examine the proposal?

I certainly give that assurance. It would be quite wrong to think that this suggestion has been turned down out of hand. When I wrote the letter I expressed myself in these terms:

"I do not think that I can at present give any undertaking to introduce legislation."

Will the hon. Member give an assurance that the Treasury is not animated by political considerations in this matter? Is he aware that the trustee savings banks movement is not an organisation for the private profit of individuals? Will he assure us that he has not been intimidated by the well-paid chairmen and directors of the "big five" banks who obviously do not want the trustee savings banks to operate such a service?

The Treasury is never intimidated and we are never motivated by political considerations.

The letter to which the hon. Member referred looked suspiciously like a refusal, and we are glad to have an assurance this afternoon that the opportunity still exists. When he undertook consultations, as he did, with certain of the joint stock banks, would it not have been very much more polite of him to have consulted the Trustee Savings Banks' Association about this proposal before sending a letter which was tantamount to a refusal, despite its concluding lines?

No, Sir. I think that the hon. Member, no doubt in advertently, has misunderstood what happened. Early last year the trustee savings banks let it be known in the Press that they had put forward a new cheques scheme. The British Bankers' Association saw the report in the Press and asked whether it could make its views known to the Treasury. It was permitted to do so, and did so in June last year, and there has been no discussion with the British Bankers' Association since then.

Is it not correct that the first overtures of the Trustee Savings Banks' Association were made to the National Debt Office and that these consultations have been going on since the latter part of 1958? Negotiations were started before any public information was given about them. Surely it is right that this organisation, which represents no fewer than 9 million small depositors in this country, should have equal facilities to deal with its customers with those of the joint stock banks?

It is for those reasons that I hope sincerely that the chairman of the Trustee Savings Banks' Association will accept my invitation to discuss the matter with me.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that time is important in this matter, particularly because the payment of wages by cheques will soon become operative?

I quite agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that we can arrange a meeting soon.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it obligatory for a trustee and, in particular, the Public Trustee, to provide tax deduction certificates to the beneficiaries of a trust.

I understand that in practice little difficulty arises and I am not satisfied that any alteration of the law in this matter is called for.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many people of small means have had to rely on these certificates to enable them to recover tax which has been deducted at too high a rate? Will he at least ensure that the Public Trustee does not make a charge for the issue of these very necessary tax deduction certificates?

Certainly. If my hon. Friend would like to correspond with me on this subject and give me his experience, I shall take note of what he says.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the relative rates at which wages and national output increased in 1959.

I regret that the information on which to base such a comparison is not yet available.

Is it not the case that national output increased at much the same rate as wages increased during 1959? Is not that information available to the Treasury? Also, does not this indicate that the relative stability of prices in 1959 was almost entirely due to the moderation of trade unions in pressing wage claims?

The fact is that it is quite impossible at the moment to give the information which the hon. Member requires. Estimates of wages and salaries and of the gross national product for the calendar year 1959 will not be available until the end of March.

Does the hon. Member realise how unsatisfactory his reply is, as this information is freely available in economic journals?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his monetary policy with regard to the pending claims for increased wages, which have been announced by the trade unions concerned.

In framing monetary and other policies, my right hon. Friend has to take into account many factors, including the risks of a renewal of inflationary pressures. Moderation in rises in the general level of wages and other incomes has an important part to play in maintaining stability in costs and prices and in enabling a satisfactory expansion of the economy to take place without inflation.

Will the hon. Member at least reassure the House that monetary policy will not be deliberately used to create unemployment in future, as occurred during the last Parliament?

The whole question of monetary policy and any other measures which we might take has been explained in great detail by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the debate on the Radcliffe Report and since in Question and Answer.

Does the Minister's Answer mean that the Chancellor has decided his policy on wages for this year before even having the figures about what happened last year? Is it not a fact that, for four or five years, successive Chancellors have stood at that Box making the same speeches about wages and that it needed 1959 experience to show that, when the Government accepted our advice and let production rise, it was possible for wages to increase without there being an increase in costs?

I am afraid that I cannot accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Our policy in this matter will be flexible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Our policy is much better than the rigid policies which we had before 1951. We shall succeed only if we have the active co-operation of all sectors of the economy.

Does the hon. Member mean by flexibility a policy under which production was not allowed to rise for four years? In contrasting present-day policies with policies before 1951, will the hon. Gentleman recognise that what he calls rigidity led to an increase in national production more than double that achieved in the last four years?

What I meant was that our policies will achieve the sort of satisfactory results which we have achieved since 1951 and which have been endorsed by the electorate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to announce increased financial support for the arts.

I must ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the 1960–61 Estimates.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that when the money is forthcoming it will be channelled through the Ministry of Education until such time as the Arts Council ceases to buttress its London capital at the expense of the provinces?

I certainly cannot give any such assurance to the hon. Lady.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what directions he gave to the Bank of England in connection with the recent increase in the Bank Rate.

None.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Has his attention been drawn to a speech made last Friday week by the Governor of the Bank of England in which he said that the main reason for the increase in the Bank Rate was the internal situation? Also, has he noted a statement by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the main reason for the increase in the Bank Rate was the balance of payments position? Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the position?

The procedure which was followed on this occasion was that which was described by my right hon. Friend in the debate on the Radcliffe Report on 26th November.

While we appreciate all this flexibility, will the hon. Gentleman answer my hon. Friend's supplementary question? Is it not a fact that the Bank of England, when it announced the increase in the Bank Rate, stated that it was because of the internal situation, that the Chancellor has said that it was because of the external situation and that the Governor now says that it was because of the internal situation? Whichever it was, internal or external, will the hon. Gentleman say whether the rise in the Bank Rate has achieved what the Government set out to do when they proposed it?

It is achieving what the Government set out to do when the rise took place. After the rise in the Bank Rate, my right hon. Friend came to this Box and answered a considerable number of Questions about it. I do not think that I can usefully add to what my right hon. Friend said then.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of entrants to the universities in 1957, 1958 and 1959; and the estimated figures for 1960, 1961 and 1962.

The numbers of autumn term new entrants to the universities and university colleges in Great Britain in 1957, 1958 and 1958 were 27,206, 27,757 and 27,533 respectively. The University Grants Committee estimates that new entrants in 1960, 1961 and 1962 will number 29,500, 31,000 and 32,000 respectively.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. Is he aware that West Germany spends twice, the United States two-and-a-half times and Russia more than four times the amount we spend on students in this country? Will the hon. Gentleman make certain that university places are available to our students so that we may be sure that our educational standards will be comparable with those in the countries I have mentioned?

The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, recall that the Chancellor informed the House on 26th January that he has authorised the University Grants Committee to discuss with universities the possibility of providing an additional 35,000 to 40,000 places by the late 'sixties or early 'seventies over and above the figure of 135,000 places already agreed. We are not, therefore, neglecting university places.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to improve the sale of premium bonds.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the plans of Her Majesty's Government for terminating, modifying or expanding the operation of premium bonds, in view of signs of decline in public support.

My right hon. Friend is considering this matter, but I have no statement to make at present.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he cannot expect to increase the sale of premium bonds if the odds against winning prizes become greater and greater? If the hon. Gentleman wants to compete successfully with football pool promoters, he will have to increase the prizes very substantially.

I can only say that during the forty-six weeks to 13th February this year, receipts from the sale of premium bonds amounted to more than £56 million and the prize money to more than £8 million.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the review of the penalty sections of the Income Tax Acts has been finished; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has this matter well in mind, but we must reserve any comment on it until our annual review of financial matters.

Is my hon. Friend aware, as I am sure he is, that my Question derives from the recent Hinchy case, the result of which in the House of Lords has caused grave uneasiness to many people? Does he agree that the House of Commons would never pass such savage penalty legislation today and will he urge our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to take steps to introduce amending legislation without delay?

Of course, I will bear in mind the points made by my hon. Friend. I must, however, say that the decision of the House of Lords in the Hinchy cas confirmed the interpretation of the law on which the Board of Inland Revenue has consistently based its practice. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of the Board claiming higher penalties than in the past.

While the Financial Secretary will realise that we on this side have persistently asked for the most effective action against tax avoidance and evasion in all forms, will he recognise that there is considerable concern in all parts of the House about the interpretation which finally has been put upon this law and which, as the hon. Gentleman said, has been the custom of the Board of Inland Revenue for many years? Is he aware that the interpretation which has now been clearly defined means that there is something arbitrary and capricious about the amount and size of the penalty which can be levied by the Board of Inland Revenue for, perhaps, a quite small act of inadvertence in forgetting to return one's Post Office Savings Bank interest or something similar and that there is a case for the law to be looked at again?

Of course, when any authoritative interepretation of the law is given, that is just the time when one wants to review the matter again. I must, however, reserve any comment upon it until the review of financial matters has been completed.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that while the judgment may have confirmed the existing practice, it also contained severe strictures upon that practice?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the observations in the judgment given in the House of Lords in the case of Hinchy v. Inland Revenue Commissioners; and whether he will consider introducing legislation to amend Section 25 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1952.

Yes. As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General informed the House on 30th July last, my right hon. Friend is making a full review of the penalty provisions of the Income Tax Acts.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that as the Section now stands, although the Board of Inland Revenue has discretion to remit the penalties, the court has no such discretion? Will that aspect of the matter be borne in mind when amending legislation is considered?

That, obviously, is the kind of matter which we will review—certainly.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what rate of interest loans are being made by the Government to Colvilles, Cunard and the British Motor Corporation; and what rate of interest the Public Works Loan Board charges to local authorities for housing and other loans of a similar period.

The Government have entered into an agreement to lend only in the case of Colvilles. The rate of interest on each instalment of the loan will be determined by the Treasury, having regard to the cost at that time of borrowing by the Government for a similar period.

Are we not entitled to be told at what rate public money is being used? Is it not a fact that it is being loaned at a lower rate of interest to private firms than to local authorities? Will the Minister admit that since 1954 this increase in interest rates has halved the building of desperately needed council houses?

I thought I had made it clear in my Answer that as no instalment has yet been drawn by Colvilles, the rate of interest has not yet been determined by the Treasury.

This is not good enough. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when this money is lent, it is lent under the authority of this House and that every one of these cases is highly unusual in character, as the noble Lord the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and other hon. Members opposite have pointed out? In these circumstances, is it not right that the House of Commons should know what rate of interest the Treasury proposes to apply in these cases? It is not good enough to say that it is the market rate. Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is tied to the Bank Rate and, if so, what differential from the Bank Rate is to be applied?

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that on 21st January last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, announced the heads of agreement with Colvilles. One of the heads of agreement was that in regard to each instalment of the loan, the rate of interest will be determined by the Treasury. So far, no instalment of loan has yet been made to Colvilles and, consequently, the time to determine the rate of interest has not yet come.

I remember the Answer perfectly. It was in column 38 of the Written Answers of HANSARD for the day the hon. Gentleman has quoted. We all know it perfectly well by heart, although it was given, I think, by the Parliamentary Secretary and not by the Minister of Power. Will the hon. Gentleman at least undertake that when money is lent, and when the Treasury advances it under this arrangement and under all the other arrangements mentioned in the Question, he will inform the House of the actual rate of interest that has been charged on those occasions?

No, Sir. I cannot give that assurance. The assurance which I can give is that I will give full consideration to any Question that the right hon. Gentleman may care to put down to me.

Will the Economic Secretary answer the Question about the other two cases, Cunard and B.M.C.?

I was asked in the Question at what rate of interest loans were being made by the Government to Colvilles, Cunard and the British Motor Corporation. I replied that the Government had entered into an agreement to lend only in the case of Colvilles.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I will raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in preparing a new Weights and Measures Bill; and when it is likely to be introduced.

Preparation of the Bill is well advanced but it will not be possible to find time for it in this Session.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we have been waiting several years for this Bill? In view of the undertakings given during the General Election, why must it take such a long time? Can the right hon. Gentleman justify these further delays?

I appreciate the hon. Member's concern about this important Measure. It will be a long and complicated matter when it comes forward and I am afraid that there is not time for it this Session.

The right hon. Gentleman must know that the House has repeatedly been promised that the Bill will be brought forward. Negotiations have been taking place with all the varied interests for a long time. Why is it not possible for the Bill to be brought forward much more quickly than the Government apparently intend to do?

It has been a long business to negotiate all this. It is a complicated Measure and I am sorry that there is not time for it this Session.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet completed his consideration of the possibility of abolishing resale price maintenance in an effort to encourage lower prices and if he will make a statement.

I am studying the working of Section 25 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956. But as the Parliamentary Secretary explained in reply to Questions on 26th January, it will be some time before I shall be able to make a statement on this complex subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when it comes to helping the general public, the consumer and the housewife, it takes such a long time? Is he aware that the Government have an obligation to the public? Why has it taken so long?

This is a complex subject. I should remind the hon. Member that it is less than four years since this House legislated on the subject.