asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to state the amount of private investment by Common Market countries in the United Kingdom in the last half of 1960; and what was the amount of United Kingdom private investment in the Common Market countries in the same period.

I regret that this information will not be available until the end of July.

Can the Economic Secretary say why there is so much delay, because when I asked for these figures last year they were provided a good deal more quickly than now? This is a matter of some considerable urgency, because there is every indication that a large amount of capital investment from this country is going into Europe because we have not yet decided to go into the Common Market.

This is, as the hon. Gentleman points out, an important matter, but the information about private investment is given in the balance of payments White Papers and is largely based on the result of the Board of Trade's inquiry into overseas direct investment. The final results of this inquiry for 1959 have only recently been published, and tabulation of the 1960 returns cannot begin before the end of June, because sufficient returns will not be available until then. Publication is planned for August. There must, inevitably, be some delay while firms make up their accounts for the preceding year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue the taxation of tobacco products yielded during the last 12-month period for which information is available; and how this compares with that of the previous twelve months.

The revenue yield was £823 million in the 12-month period ending on 31st May, 1961, compared with £801 million for the previous twelve months.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that this fantastic figure leads people to suspect that the Government have a big vested interest in smoking? Can the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of this sum is to be spent on educating young people in the dangers of smoking and will he not now consider, in view of this vast sum, a tax on the advertising of tobacco products, some aspects of which have been very distasteful in recent months and which cost £2·2 million in nine months of last year?

This duty is the largest single source of revenue from all the Customs and Excise duties, but I do not really think that it falls within the scope of the Question for me to give an answer on the subject of advertisements. I must point out, since this is highly relevant, that the basic rate of tobacco duty was increased by the 1960 Budget and, consequently, the figures I have given in the answer do not constitute a direct measure of changes in consumption.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall endeavour to raise this subject on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the case of Duple Motor Bodies Ltd. v. Ostime, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes, in relation to the valuation of work in progress; whether he is aware that the judgments given in the Chancery Division, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, were unanimously against the contentions of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; and how much were the costs, including those of the company incurred by the Crown, in connection with this litigation.

Yes, Sir. The Crown's costs, including those of the company, are expected to be in the region of £3,750.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he has seen the remarks of the Master of the Rolls, and what steps is he taking to ensure that public funds are not dissipated in the manner shown in this case?

I do not agree that public funds were dissipated unreasonably in this case. An important general issue was involved and it has been of considerable value to have had a final decision on it.

In view of the fact that in this case judgment was given against the Crown, both in the Chancery Division and the Court of Appeal, without any dissenting judgment, can my hon. Friend say whether, before seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords, an undertaking was given by the Crown to bear the costs, and, in any event, if this is not the usual practice, will my hon. Friend give instructions that this should be the usual practice?

That raises another matter. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it, but I should prefer that he should give me notice of that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the estimates for building the Spencer works of Messrs. Richard Thomas and Baldwins Limited will be considerably exceeded, and that revised estimates will be submitted with an application for increased Government loans for a greater sum than the £70 million at present agreed; and if he will undertake that no such increased advances will be granted without the approval of this House.

On 27th October my right hon. and learned Friend informed the House that the company would have to find substantial sums for its developments at the Spencer Works and elsewhere in addition to the expenditure of £150 million to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power referred in the debate on 27th June last. In order to do this it will need to increase its external borrowings during the next few years. As my right hon. Friend indicated in his reply on 26th October last, the company will look to the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency which is its usual source of finance for short term requirements. There is thus no question of an increase in the amount to be advanced by my right hon. Friend.

Will my hon. Friend agree that it would be better that this firm should be returned to private enterprise before it has a chance to come to this House and follow the usual procedure of nationalised industries in asking us to write off past extravagance at the taxpayers' expense?

My right hon. and learned Friend has already stated the Government's policy on denationalisation and in particular with regard to this company; but earlier in the year we did take a considerable step forward in publishing a White Paper on Government expenditure below the line. It would not strictly have been necessary for us to include in that the amounts which are involved so far as this company is concerned, but we did so for the convenience of the House and a considerable amount of information has been given.

Would my hon. Friend persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get a move on?

I am sure that that request will be noted.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there has been any extravagance in this matter? I have not heard of it.

No, Sir. All I would say on that point is that, very naturally, as the Government are involved in this, we are anxious that the new strip mill capacity should be provided as economically as possible. At the moment a re-estimation is going on, and I think the House will be interested to know that the company is, in fact, receiving outside professional advice in this matter.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the company is not also concerned to avoid extravagance?

In view of the fact that even the managing director has stated that the estimates for the new works are going to be considerably exceeded, is it not the case that if the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has not heard about it he must be singularly deaf?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, since foreign investment earnings in Britain rose between 1958 and 1960 by 60 per cent. whereas British investment earnings in other countries rose by only 20 per cent., what steps he is taking to ensure that a larger proportion of the profits earned by British investment overseas is brought back to this country, so as to help the balance of payments position; and if he will make a statement.

In 1958 and 1959 United Kingdom firms remitted about 60 per cent. of their profits, whereas subsidiaries of overseas firms remitted from this country a substantially smaller proportion. The figures quoted by my hon. Friend relate to total earnings and not to amounts remitted to the parent country. It is, of course, in the national interest for profits to be brought back to this country as quickly as possible, except to the extent that these are required for direct overseas investment of a kind for which permission would be granted.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is against the national interest for British firms to export their scarce capital, invest it in overseas companies and then keep reinvesting their profits in new capital development and not bring any of the profits back to help this country with our balance of payments problem? Will not the Treasury look into this matter to see that at least a fair proportion of the earnings are brought back here to help the position at home.

In so far as the profits are retained for direct overseas investment, of a kind, as I said earlier, for which permission would in any event be granted, for the export of capital, obviously that is a sensible thing to do. But my hon. Friend is quite right in saying that it is in the national interest that, after taking that into account, as large a proportion of the profits as possible should be remitted to this country. Of course, we have powers under the Exchange Control Act to require the repatriation of profits of United Kingdom subsidiaries and we exercise them, but we try to avoid wherever possible interfering with the normal development of United Kingdom subsidiaries.

Is it a fact that, as a result of the O.T.C. provision introduced by this Government and with the double taxation agreement, a rather alarming proportion of the profits accrued abroad are not being returned to this country?

The figures for 1958–59 show that in 1959 the United Kingdom subsidiaries abroad remitted 58 per cent. of their profits, whereas the figure for foreign subsidiaries here was only 44 per cent. In 1958 the figures were 62 per cent. and 53 per cent. respectively.

Would the Treasury fix a period of years in which the profits earned overseas can be ploughed back overseas, at the end of which period some of the profits must be brought back here to help the home position? Surely, that is fair, and something like that should be done?

I certainly appreciate the importance of this matter and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in view of the taxability of profits derived from Stock Exchange transactions, where the person concerned is in effect carrying on a business of trading in shares for gain, what steps the Inland Revenue are taking in order to ensure that all profits from such Stock Exchange trading transactions, and in particular profits from stagging operations as opposed to genuine investment, are assessed for tax;

With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, in view of the fact that it has been definitely stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these day-to-day selling operations are trading ventures and are subject to tax, may I ask my hon. Friend what steps we are going to take to see that the proper amount of tax is recoverable? Surely some action should be taken by my right hon. and learned Friend to see that these items are declared. If they are declared by the operators, is it not a serious offence for others concerned not to declare them also? Is it not time that some action was taken, for the good of our economy and of our industrial relations, to stop this inflationary merry-go-round?

If my hon. Friend looks at my original Answer he will realise that my right hon. and learned Friend takes this matter seriously. The point is that there are real practical difficulties about introducing arrangements whereby the United Kingdom Revenue should obtain and be required to analyse details of all bargains put through by stockbrokers. It is no good this House passing legislation which would not stand up from an administrative point of view. But, having said that, I entirely agree that this is a matter that we should consider very seriously.

Sir Cyril Osborne, Question No. 9.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I be allowed to ask a second supplementary question, in view of the fact that my two Questions were answered together?

I am sorry. There are two points. One is that in the circumstances the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to refuse his permission for the two Questions to be answered together, and the other is that we are making very poor progress.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the urgent need to increase exports and the failure of exhortation alone to achieve this, if he will consult with the President of the Board of Trade about the immediate reduction of tariffs so as to reduce the greater profitability of the protected home market as against export markets, in order to divert more production into exports, and help the balance of payments problem; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade have both referred in this House to the beneficial effect of increased competition in the home market which might be expected to result from a reduction in tariffs. But, as the President of the Board of Trade said on 30th March, the right way to cut tariffs is by getting reciprocal reductions at the same time so that we can not only increase competition in this country but also increase opportunities for our exports. This is a major objective of the G.A.T.T. tariff negotiations now in progress.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that the Bank for International Settlements Report this morning shows that British exports in the last seven years have increased by only 28 per cent. as against 156 per cent. by Germany and 180 per cent. by Italy? Since exhortation has not caused our manufacturers to go into the export market, why does not the Chancellor make it more profitable to sell in the export market and less profitable to sell in the home market, thus driving the manufacturers to concentrate on exports? Will he do something on these lines?

It is certainly the hope of Her Majesty's Government that as a result of the current G.A.T.T. negotiations there will be really big and effective reductions in industrial tariffs on a reciprocal basis between ourselves and the other major trading nations concerned.

If that is the object of Her Majesty's Government, why have they given such a niggardly response to the offer of the Common Market countries to make a cut of 20 per cent. along the whole of the industrial tariffs?

All these matters are now being considered in the G.A.T.T. negotiations and certainly it would not be wise from a negotiating point of view to disclose our hand at this time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for the publication of a monthly cumulative list specifying the various matters referred to Departmental and other officially appointed bodies upon which the Government have made a recent decision, which have been reported upon but are awaiting the Government's decision, and which have not yet been reported upon, respectively.

No, Sir. I do not think that this proposal would be practicable.

Is my hon. Friend aware that even the keenest student of politics finds it rather hard to remember at the drop of a hat the whereabouts and contents of the various Jack, Wolfenden, Scott Henderson, Albemarle, Roberts, Philips, Radnor, Streatfeild, Romer and other Reports, and that such a document might be a convenience for hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Even so keen a student of politics as my hon. Friend might be a little bemused by the accounts of progress of advisory bodies of a central and national character which, even in 1958, totalled 850 and now probably total even more.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the total cost to a local authority of a £2,600 multi-storey flat after interest has been paid for sixty years at the new Public Works Loan Board rate of 6¼ per cent.; and how much per week the interest charge involves.

The total costs of borrowing £2,600 repayable by half-yearly annuities over sixty years would amount to £10,000. The average weekly interest charges on such borrowing would amount to £2 7s. 4d.

Are not those staggering figures? Is the Minister aware that if the repayment charge is added, the total loan charge would be £3 4s. per week even without rates and repairs? Does he admit that this intolerable burden, for which the Government's financial policy is responsible, has halved council house building during the last six years and has shocked house buyers too?

There is another aspect to this matter. Housing provided in accordance with the Government's housing policy, including the multi-storey flats which are referred to in the Question, attracts a substantial subsidy from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. This considerably reduces the amount of rent which a council needs to charge.

In view of the general state of our economy and the export figures quoted by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on Question No. 6, does the hon. Gentleman think that anything worth while is being achieved by these extraordinarily high interest rates?

The Public Works Loan Board interest rates have, since the change was made in October, 1955, followed the ruling rate of interest, and this is because the Government do not feel it right that the local authorities should be shielded from the general trend of interest rates. To do that would, in fact, give them a form of concealed subsidy, and we feel that any assistance given to local authorities should be open and above board.

Is not the general trend of interest rates, from which, apparently local authorities must not be shielded, the result of Government policy? How can the hon. Gentleman run away from that responsibility? In view of the many Government pronouncements recently making it quite clear that they are introducing economic regulators because they have now come to accept the Radcliffe Report on these matters, will the hon. Gentleman explain how he justifies these high interest rates when, apart from one or two Members of the Government, practically everyone recognises that they have been a complete failure in regulating the economy?

High interest rates are, in the main, the consequence of a shortage of capital.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the recent increase in interest rates for home purchasers and council house tenants, he will restore the 3 per cent. housing loans available to local authorities up to 1951; and what would be the approximate annual cost to the Exchequer of providing housing loans through the Public Works Loan Board at this rate instead of 6¼ per cent. on council houses now under construction.

No, Sir. It would cost the Exchequer roughly £8 million per year to allow the Public Works Loan Board to make 60-year loans to local authorities at 3 per cent. instead of the current rate of 6¼ per cent. in respect of the 142,500 or so council houses now under construction.

Is not £8 million a relatively small sum to help the rehousing drive which is so desperately needed? Will the Minister again make the excuse that he cannot insulate tenants from the general interest rates in the market, when that is precisely what he is doing with Cunard, Colvilles, B.M.C. and Ford? Does not his Answer to Question No. 11 show that it is not the tenants who are being subsidised but the financiers?

In answering Question No. 11, I dealt with Her Majesty's Government's general policy on this matter. I can only repeat that to do what the hon. Gentleman wishes would, in effect, be to give a concealed subsidy. We believe that it is better, by means of the assistance given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, to give help in such a form as will be perfectly apparent to all concerned.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider the principle that Commonwealth assistance loans should be granted at interest rates higher than those ruling in the London money market, in view of the special appeal made by Mr. Nyerere at the recent Constitutional Conference on the introduction of self-government for Tanganyika.

These loans are made at rates of interest which reflect the rate at which Her Majesty's Government could themselves borrow for comparable periods. These are more favourable rates than the countries concerned could themselves expect to obtain on the market. I regard these as appropriate terms for this loan finance and I cannot undertake any change in this respect.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that many of these new African States are being compelled, unfortunately, through the Government, to pay extravagant rates for the money which they require for their development and that, as a consequence, their development is hindered and the cost of living is going up? Does he know, for instance, that in Uganda recently the cost of electricity went up by 15 per cent.? Does the Government's policy really help to produce in these new States a state of affairs which the hon. Gentleman would like to see? Will he reconsider the matter and think of assistance loans at preferential rates?

I think that the rates currently being charged are reasonable. It is fair to say that most of the less-developed countries could not borrow at all on the London market, or, if they had to do so, would certainly have to pay more than they are paying at present. Moreover, as the hon. Member knows, we assist these countries in other ways.

Is it not the plain fact that, if the Government's interest policy were more rational, these and other countries and home borrowers and others in this country could all borrow at more reasonable rates? In view of the figures in regard to invisible payments disclosed on an earlier Question today, has not the hon. Gentleman yet woken up to the fact that these high interest rates mean a very heavy drain across the exchanges paid to people abroad from whom we are borrowing money? Will the Government reconsider their whole policy?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you renew your request that supplementary questions be shorter?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I regret that it is becoming rather repetitive.

That matter raised by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) is outside the ambit of this Question and raises broader issues.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the Blackburn branch of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters protesting against his refusal to arrange for refunds of Pay As You Earn Income Tax to be made in uncrossed rather than crossed warrants.

I have sent the hon. Member a copy of the reply in question.

Is not that reply totally unsatisfactory? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that about 4 million of these refund payments are made every year, many of them to people who have no bank account and who must, therefore, hawk these confidential drafts round traders to find someone kind enough to cash them, the traders having to pay bank charges, and is it not intolerable that this burden should be put on humble people in order to save the Government administrative expense?

I think that the hon. Lady is making a bit of a storm in an egg-cup about this. For thirty-five years, all repayments have been made by crossed cheque and complaints of difficulty about encashment have been very few. Orders may be paid into Post Office and Trustee Savings Bank accounts, and a leaflet is enclosed with each order showing just how it can be cashed and making all explanations. I will look at the matter again, but we have had really very few complaints about it over a long time.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the people who receive the complaints are the sub-postmasters and that their federation at its last conference passed a resolution of protest just because it was aware of the burden put upon its members' customers whom they cannot help in these matters? Will he look at the matter again?

I think that crossed cheques are the simplest means of providing the maximum security against fraud of all kinds. I will look at it again, but I think we should need a lot of persuading that our practice of the last thirty-five years should be altered.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the change in the gold and dollar reserves, for the period 1st March to 31st May, 1961, compares with the changes for the similar period in 1960 and 1959, respectively and whether he will make a statement.

The gold and convertible currency reserves fell by £104 million during the period 1st March to 31st May, 1961; they rose by £49 million in the same period of 1960, and fell by £13 million in the same period of 1959. The fall in the reserves in 1961 is partly due to the present adverse underlying balance of payments, and partly to the withdrawal of short-term funds from London.

Is not the Economic Secretary aware that this is an extremely serious decline at a time when the pound should be seasonally strong? Does it not reflect a very serious lack of foreign confidence clue to the complete failure of the Government's present export policy?

The Government have never concealed their view that our present balance of payments situation is most unsatisfactory, and my right hon. and learned Friend explained the way in which he proposed to deal with it in his Budget speech. I would merely add this for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. Changes in the reserves do not by themselves necessarily provide a reliable indication of the underlying balance of payments position in the United Kingdom because they are influenced by other monetary movements. For example, during 1960, the reserves rose in each month of the year, except January, and by a total of £177 million, even though 1960 was a year when there was a large balance of payments deficit.

Do not these figures, grave though they are, very much understate the position in the five months in question in that this new system has been introduced of European central banks holding sterling? If it were not for that, would there not be a very much heavier drain on our reserves? Could not the hon. Gentleman put a figure on that item?

I am sure the right hon Gentleman knows that it would be contrary to public policy to disclose details of the transactions under the Exchange Equalisation Account. Clearly, the United Kingdom's reserves have been supported by the assistance given to us by other central banks, but I cannot reveal the size of the transactions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to control the rate of interest charged by building societies on advances to owner-occupiers purchasing their houses through building societies.

No, Sir. The rate of interest on mortgages must remain a matter for settlement between a society and its borrowers.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, with the highest mortgage interest rate for forty years, it is sheer humbug to talk about encouraging a property-owning democracy? Would not he also agree that, instead of forcing building societies to raise their interest charges, which is what he is doing at present, causing serious hardship to over 2 million borrowers, steps should be taken to force interest rates down?

The hon. Gentleman will pardon me if I point out that building societies have to borrow money before they can lend it. If their interest rate on loans were controlled in one way or another, the individual society would not be able to adjust the rate it offers to investors so as to maintain an adequate inflow of funds.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase in the salary and expenses of hon. Members is necessary to bring them up to the money equivalent when the present rates were decided.

On the basis of the change in the internal purchasing value of the pound since July, 1957, the equivalent now of the £1,000 salary and of the £750 additional remuneration of hon. Members would respectively be £1,056 and £792.

Then why not pay the increase? Why should we be deprived of our rights? Why should civil servants, teachers, doctors, and even footballers get an increase in salary while impoverished and impecunious Members of Parliament have to look outside in order to gain a little extra to keep their heads above water?

That is a highly controversial question, and I am glad it does not fall to me to decide it.

Will my hon. Friend draw attention to the outside income of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) from broadcasting, television, and the remainder?

May I ask the hon. Gentleman—

Order. I think that the true position is that the Minister is scarcely responsible for activities of that kind.

On a point of order. Did you, Mr. Speaker, regard the observation of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) as relevant to the supplementary question which I put?

I thought that the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Kidderminster was out of order on two grounds. But one ground is enough, and that is that there is no Ministerial responsibility for that aspect of the matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number of places estimated to be needed in the four universities in Scotland by 1970; and if he will give the detailed provisions planned for each.

I would refer the hon. Member to the second paragraph of the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend on 18th May and to the statement I made on 26th January last in reply to the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson). Underlying these statements is the calculation that the total demand from Scottish students is likely to be of the order of 8,000 additional places in the early 1970s, and the Scottish universities' own assessment of their capacity to expand.

Neither in the beginning, the middle nor the end has that Answer anything to do with the Question on the Order Paper. I have asked for the figures of supply and demand for 1970. The hon. Gentleman either refuses or has forgotten to give them. Is it not the ease that by 1970, the date which everyone is looking to, the number of places available by expansion for Scottish students will still be over 2,000 short of requirements? In view of that, will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. and learned Friend to look again at the statement which he made on 18th May?

I do not think that I can go beyond the Answer which I have given. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the second half of it in particular, he will find that it is pretty specific. I assure him that we have followed the exceptional procedure of fixing the capi- tal programme for the universities for the next four years, and we have borne the expansion of Scottish universities very much in mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the considerations which caused him to decide that a fifth university was not necessary in Scotland.

The location of new university foundations in the immediate future was considered by the University Grants Committee, whose recent recommendations on this subject have been accepted. My right hon. and learned Friend explained the underlying considerations for the omission of a new Scottish university from the present list in his statement on 18th May. Further development must, as he then explained, await the Report of the Committee on Higher Education at present working under the Chairmanship of Lord Robbins.

Is the hon. Gentleman quite certain that by 1970 there will be accommodation for these extra 8,000 pupils? If he is not, what does he propose to do about it and what consultations will the Chancellor of the Exchequer have with the University Grants Committee?

If I may say so, that supplementary question hardly arises out of the Question which the hon. Lady tabled. I cannot say any more than I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) just now.

The hon. Gentleman did not say enough.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the conferring of university status on the Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow; and what recommendations on this question he has received from the University Grants Committee.

I would refer the hon. Lady to my reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson) on 8th June.

I have in my hand the reply which the Financial Secretary gave, which was most unsatisfactory. Does not he realise that most educationists in Scotland have been convinced for a very long time that this college, with its high educational reputation, ought to have the status of a university conferred on it?

That may be, but my reply on 8th June was perfectly true. My understanding today is exactly the same as it was when I answered on that occasion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he takes into consideration the advice of the University Grants Committee when deciding his policies for university development.

Very fully.

In that case, will the hon. Gentleman consider making public the considerations which were taken into account by the Committee? Does he realise that university development is now a major matter of national policy and that it is not suitable that the public should know only via Government spokesmen what conclusions the Committee reached? Is it not desirable that we should know the grounds which led to those conclusions?

I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but we ought to think very hard before saying that the advice and reasons for the advice given by the Committee to the Government should always be made available in detail to this House. It is essential that the relationship between the Government and the Committee should be easy and informal, and the interests of all hon. Members are bound up in this.

Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises another aspect of the problem. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a quite detailed statement about future university provision on 18th May, practically all of it referred to England. Scotland was dismissed almost in a single sentence. Cannot the hon. Gentleman tell us a little more than we were told on that occasion?

I do not propose at Question Time to say any more about the advice which the Government received from the University Grants Committee, except that I think that the Chancellor would rightly hesitate very seriously before departing from any view which the Committee expressed.

Could we have a White Paper on the subject?

My right hon. and learned Friend will consider any suggestions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent his policies for university development are influenced by the concept of an optimum size.

Optimum size is a matter on which opinions are bound to differ and is primarily for each university to decide for itself.

Is it not the case that a decision not to locate an additional university in Scotland prejudges the whole matter? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the two larger universities in Scotland are already unitary institutions, bigger than any unitary university in England, and that the present decision means that they appear to be likely to go up to 10,000 or 12,000 students? Is this desirable in view of the question of a possible optimum?

It would be very undesirable to take up a rigid attitude on this matter. No pressure has been brought to bear either by my right hon. and learned Friend or by the University Grants Committee upon any university to expand beyond what it considers desirable.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received from employers' organisations and trade unions, respectively, conveying support for the proposed payroll tax.

None, Sir.

Is not the real position that this proposed tax has been attacked by people on both sides of industry, by practically the whole of the Press, by this side of the House of Commons and by a number of hon. Members on the other side? Has the hon. Gentleman found any support anywhere for this proposal?

I would have been very surprised indeed if any organisations such as those mentioned in the Question had written to my right hon. and learned Friend to welcome the proposal of increased taxation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reasons for the declining market value of British Government securities, in particular three-and-half per cent. War Loan; and what action he is taking to arrest this decline.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to arrest the decline in the price of British Government securities.

Movements in interest rates, and thus in the values of British Government securities, reflect conditions in the capital market. It would be contrary to practice to say anything about the future.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many decent patriotic citizens, some in quite humble circumstances, bought War Loan, for example, years ago and they feel that they are the victims of a gigantic swindle and that the Government do not care two pins about them except to repeat these worn-out, soulless economic clichés? Is not this a shocking and heartbreaking state of affairs, for which the Goverment must accept a heavy burden of responsibility?

I certainly understand the difficulties of the people of whom the hon. Member has spoken, those who hold War Loan in particular, but I am afraid that the fall which there has been in the value of War Loan does not affect the considerations which, as I explained to the House last December, have determined the Government's decision in this matter.

As innumerable small savers have suffered huge losses, and, indeed, the National Insurance Fund, which is held in trust for the contributors, has now made losses amounting to nearly £400 million, are the Government completely indifferent and complacent about the plight of all these unfortunate people?

No, Sir, we are not indifferent. But after the fullest consideration, we came to the conclusion, for reasons which I gave at length last December, that we could not assist in the various ways which had been suggested.

Since War Loan is now down to 55, which is nearly half the price a lot of people paid, especially during the war, when they felt that they were in some way helping the Government by buying this stock, should not something be done to put a floor beneath this stock so that it will give people the feeling that they have not been diddled in their patriotism?

If we were to put a floor beneath War Loan as my hon. Friend suggests, that would in effect entail a commitment upon the Government to buy at the support price all stock offered, however large the amount. My right hon. and learned Friend simply could not contemplate such a commitment.

Since this is the third Question this afternoon which has shown up the costly effect of the Government's high interest rate policy, is it not time that the Government reconsidered the whole of their policy, the more so as they have been telling the House that they are now coming round to acceptance of the general doctrine of the Radcliffe Report?

Once again, that goes much wider than the Question. The factors which determine the level of interest rates cannot sensibly be considered at Question Time.

In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of that reply, propose to raise the matter at the earliest possible date.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to widespread anxiety concerning continued weakness of sterling, what steps he is taking to prevent an autumn financial and economic crisis; and whether he will make a statement upon outflow of funds in recent months and on the weakening of sterling.

I will answer the second part of the Question first. The foreign exchange market was disturbed following the revaluation of the Deutschmark and the guilder in March. With the underlying deficit in our balance of payments, sterling came under pressure, and the reserves fell by £62 million in the month. Although this pressure was subsequently reduced, the outflow of funds continued on a smaller scale and the reserves fell by £26 million in April and £16 million in May. They then stood at £1,037 million.

Would my hon. Friend confirm that the first, second and third lines of our reserves are adequate for all foreseeable contingencies? Secondly, and more important, would he confirm that in no circumstances will the Chancellor contemplate devaluation of sterling in the autumn?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has already stated categorically that sterling will not be devalued and I emphatically repeat that statement now. Concerning the adequacy of our reserves, at the end of May the reserves stood at £1,037, or £60 million higher than they were at the beginning of 1960. In addition, the United Kingdom drawing rights in the International Monetary Fund are completely unused. In the meantime, the co-operation between central banks agreed upon at Basle in March, although intended to deal with short-term movements of funds, was not a short-term understanding. The United Kingdom is thus able to call on resources which are fully adequate to meet any speculative attack on sterling.

A very good reply.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the aggregate current inventory value of Government investment in the steel industry; what inventory value is now represented by investment in the wholly nationalised Richard Thomas and Baldwins Limited; what progress has been made since February, 1961, towards denationalisation of Richard Thomas and Baldwins Limited; and whether he will now make a further statement concerning denationalisation of the State-owned residue of the steel industry, particularly Richard Thomas and Baldwins Limited.

The book value to the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency of its present holdings in the Steel industry amounts to £140·7 million, of which £67·1 million relates to securities in and loans to Richard Thomas and Baldwins. In addition my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power has lent £12·1 million to Richard Thomas and Baldwins and £15 million to Colvilles under his arrangements with these two companies. As for the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, it would be contrary to practice for me to enter into discussion about possible future sales by the Agency.

That is a very bad reply. Does my hon. Friend realise that his supporters on this side of the House have endured with considerable patience the long delay in denationalising Richard Thomas and Baldwins? Cannot this be carried through at an early date while stock market conditions are so favourable for the exercise?

My right hon. and learned Friend has on a number of occasions, and I have again this afternoon, referred to the intentions of the Government concerning denationalisation. We have made our position clear and I hope that in due course my hon. Friend will be satisfied.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will set up a committee of inquiry into the legal and social disabilities suffered by illegitimate persons, and to make recommendations for the removal of their disabilities.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is not convinced that there is a case for appointing a committee for this purpose at the present time.

In view of the fact that the Act passed two years ago only reduced the number of illegitimate people rather than dealt with the problems of those who remained illegitimate, is it not time to remove these disabilities from this second-class group of citizens, who are in this position through no fault of their own?

During recent years, a great deal of legislation has been enacted to remove disabilities. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not satisfied of the need for further action, but if the hon. Member likes to submit any suggestion we will, of course, consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of fixed penalty notices issued by wardens in the Metropolitan Police district since the passing of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960; and whether he is satisfied that all the tickets issued are accounted for.

Forty-six thousand four hundred and forty-one fixed penalty notices had been issued in the Metropolitan Police district up to 3rd June, 1961. A regular audit of notices is carried out, and my right hon. Friend has no reason to think that any of them are not accounted for.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of a statement in an article in the Solicitors' Journal of 19th May this year which contains the statement that about 15,000 tickets with a face value of £30,000 were unaccounted for and which concludes with the observation that

"the law is brought into disrepute by the very facility with which the consequences of breaking it can be avoided. The whole affair of the warden's ticket has become a game"?

Yes, Sir. The facts contained in that article were quite wrong. The House will be interested to know that at 30th April, 1961, of 38,968 tickets issued to that date, the Commissioner had decided to take no action in 6,160 cases, the police were pursuing inquiries in 4,130 cases and in the remaining 73·6 per cent. of cases the fixed penalty had been paid or the case had been dealt with or was awaiting hearing by the court.

Will the Joint Under-Secretary say that he is quite sure that the parking meter system allied to the traffic warden system is not in great danger? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman happy about the future?

Yes, Sir. The fixed penalty system and enforcement by traffic wardens have done much to relieve congestion in the West End and to free police officers for other and more important duties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons he has visited in the course of the present year and in 1960; on how many of these visits he was entertained to luncheon or other meals in the prisons; and if he is satisfied that the food served to him on these occasions was identical with that served to the prisoners.

Since being at the Home Office I have visited a great variety of penal establishments and whenever possible it is my practice to see and sample the meals served to inmates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that C Division of the Essex County Fire Brigade, serving Barking, Dagenham, Hornchurch, Ilford, and other parts of Metropolitan Essex, is 81 short of its total strength of 453 full-time firemen, that in the next four years 68 more firemen will retire on completing their pensionable service, and that wastage due to resignations is greater than the intake of recruits; and what steps he is taking urgently to make good this deficiency.

My information is that this division is at present 52 men short of a whole-time establishment of 440; that normal retirements on pension during the next four years are not expected to exceed 40; and that in the last twelve months recruitment to the brigade has exceeded wastage by 52 men.

Even if the figures are not exactly the same as those which the right hon. Gentleman has, does he nevertheless agree that there is a very serious situation? How urgently is the right hon. Gentleman taking steps to meet it?

We have this situation almost throughout the country and we are doing our best to put it right, but in the area which the hon. Member represents it is true that recruitment has exceeded the wastage and to that extent it is satisfactory. But this does not mean that we are sitting back. We are doing our best to improve recruitment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the result of his discussions with the representatives of local fire authorities about an inquiry into the future of the fire services; and if he will make a statement.

The consultations are not quite complete; but I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he refuses to consent to the demolition of the air raid shelters in Madeley Heath, to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme recently drew his attention.

It remains the policy of the Government to preserve sound ail raid shelters as far as possible. If a shelter can be shown to be dangerous to health or there are other compelling grounds my right hon. Friend is always prepared to consider its removal, but a recent inspection of the shelters referred to by the hon. Member revealed no such grounds.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these shelters were cleaned out for purposes of inspection but that as probably there will not be another inspection unless I keep writing to him, they inevitably will become unsanitary again? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman have regular inspections made to keep them sanitary or else have them pulled down?

We will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has said. The inspection in April was attended by the medical officer of health and he said that the shelters were in good structural condition and constituted no danger to public health. They contained some refuse, and since inspection they have been cleaned and resealed. The local authority no doubt will wish to keep an eye on them.