asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what consultations he has had with the universities regarding the number of new faculties of medicine that will be required during the next ten years;

I have asked the University Grants Committee to consider with the universities the implications of a rise in the intake of medical students of 10 per cent. above the level recommended by the Willink Committee. I understand that the Committee are now doing this.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that the present position conceding the shortage of doctors is quite alarming even taking into account the assistance which we get from overseas graduates who help to repair the damage caused by the shortage, and that if medical schools are not built we shall be in for a very serious crisis? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that Durham University would welcome the opportunity of having its own medical faculty when it separates from Newcastle and that it has all the facilities for having such a faculty established in the area? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give that point of view his consideration.

With regard to Durham, I feel sure that the University Grants Committee will examine all the implications of the revision. As to the number, I think that the hon. Member appreciates with me the rightness of the decision to go for this 10 per cent. increase.

If there are going to be opportunities for taking in more students of medicine, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that facilities in Scotland are already insufficient? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he could give some further consideration to the need for a fifth university for Scotland in order to meet this demand?

This is not a question of new universities; this is a question of the University Grants Committee considering with the universities how a rise of 10 per cent. in the number of medical students can best be provided.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that in the opinion of most people the shortage of doctors is of an order far more serious than could be met by the restoration of the 10 per cent. cut, and would he invite the University Grants Committee, in considering this problem and future needs, to take advice from quarters other than the Ministry of Health?

The actual numbers of doctors needed must be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and not for me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many gallons of sweets were withdrawn from bond in the twelve months ended 31st March, 1961, and the nine months ended 31st December, 1961; and how many gallons of sweets were in bond on 31st March, 1960, and on 31st December, 1961, or other convenient date compared with the same date in 1960.

As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that information in respect of December, 1961, is not yet available; the reply therefore shows the position as at 30th November, 1961.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total revenue derived from the excise duties on sweets in the nine months ended 31st December, 1961; and, of that total, how much was attributable under Schedule 4 of the Finance Act, 1958, as amended, to still British wines, to sparkling British wines and to dutiable cider and perry, respectively.

I regret that figures for December, 1961, are not yet available. The total revenue derived from the excise duties on sweets in the eight months ended on 30th November, 1961, was £2,687,057. Of this total, £2,628,069 was attributable to still British wines and £58,988 to sparkling British wines. Separate figures for cider and perry, strengthened to 15 degrees of proof or more, are not available.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind the fact that the duty on cider and perry bears heavily on a small industry which uses a great deal of home-produced apples and pears? Will he also bear in mind that this industry will be particularly exposed to the biting effects of the winds of change should Britain enter the Common Market?

My hon. Friend has on a number of occasions discussed the difficulties which face this side of the industry, but as this is a budgetary matter I cannot, of course, say more about it today other than that my right hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind what has been said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a statement on the introduction of limited cheque scheme by the trustee savings banks.

I discussed their proposals for a limited cheque scheme with representatives of the Trustee Savings Banks Association last week. As agreed at that meeting I have invited representatives of the joint stock banks to come and discuss the scheme with me.

As this matter, which ought to have been settled in a few months at the most, has now dragged on for about three years, partly owing to the Government having given a right of veto to the commercial banks over the trustee savings banks, can the hon. Gentleman assure us that we will have a decision soon? His Answer is very disappointing.

The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the facts. There is no question of the Government giving a right of veto. As for the delay which has occurred since I first saw representatives of the trustee savings banks, I can only say that the initiative has lain with the Association for about a year and a half from April, 1960, until its latest memorandum was received in the Treasury only last month. As soon as I received it and had time to consider it, I saw the Association's representatives only last week. Already, the Treasury is in touch with the joint stock banks in the hope that we can meet in the near future.

Is it not a fact that the joint stock banks prepared and issued their scheme about three years ago and that the Government asked them to discuss it with the commercial banks before it went further? Can the Economic Secretary hold out hope that he will be introducing the necessary legislation fairly soon?

No, Sir. The position is that when representatives of the Trustees Savings Banks Association came to see me originally to discuss the matter, there were a number of matters of great importance which still had to be considered further if the scheme was to work effectively. One of them was the question of joint stock bank co-operation, which would be essential to any such scheme. This was obviously the next move that should take place. I ought to make it clear that there are still considerable administrative and practical problems to be overcome if such a scheme is to be implemented. For my part, however, I hope that I shall be able to see the joint stock banks just as soon as is convenient to them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to ensure that a fair proportion of Government Department orders are allocated to Scottish firms.

Government orders are placed by contract after competitive tendering by selected firms. Government Departments do however operate a special preference scheme whereby, other things being equal, contracts are given to firms in areas listed as development districts. These districts cover a large part of Scotland. Departments have recently reviewed their procedure for drawing up trades lists and specifications with a view to improving the opportunity of Scottish firms to tender. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has also arranged to draw the attention of Scottish firms to the possibilities of tendering for Government work.

That Answer is rather similar to one that was given on 4th July in reply to a Question, not in precisely similar terms, but dealing with another aspect of the problem. Can the Chief Secretary indicate whether there have been definite consultations between Treasury Ministers and Ministers re sponsible for contracting Departments so that work can be steered into development districts where there is a high rate of unemployment?

Yes, Sir. There is the closest contact between Treasury Ministers and other Ministers on all these matters, and the existing arrangements give a degree of preference to all development districts.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many oil paintings belonging to galleries and museums for which he is responsible are not exhibited.

Out of a total of 12,680 oil paintings, 8,529 are not on permanent public exhibition in the galleries or museums which own them. The great majority of these are readily accessible to students and other interested members of the public. Most of the rest are on loan to other public collections.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is rather a wastage of the national artistic heritage? Will he consider whether the museums and galleries under his control have power to sell works of art which are not exhibited and will he consider setting up a scheme whereby such works of art could be loaned out to responsible authorities and individuals on a hire basis so that all may enjoy works of art in the possession of the State?

There are widespread arrangements for lending. There are many pictures available for lending which other exhibitions have not borrowed. The question of selling pictures from the national collections raises difficult issues. One might sell a picture now because it was out of fashion and be cursed for it fifty years later.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to establish a scheme whereby special taxation relief is allowed on all profits made on new export business above the current levels.

No, Sir. Such a scheme would be contrary to our international obligations.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that many exporters and manufacturing concerns feel that the time has come for a real incentive to be given in the export trade, particularly as exports involve much additional expenditure which is not normally incurred in the home trade?

I appreciate the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind, but the policy of the Government has been over the years to work for the elimination of artificial aids to exports, and we have achieved a considerable measure of success. Many people agree that a reversal of that policy would be likely to lead to international competition in export incentives and I believe that in the end our exports would suffer and not gain.

What is the difference between having an artificial rate of interest, as was announced this week, and having a scheme such as this? Is the Economic Secretary telling us that it is impossible for the ingenuity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Treasury to devise a scheme that would aid exporters and, at the same time, be in conformity with our international obligations?

The difference between what my right hon. and learned Friend announced on Tuesday and what my hon. Friend suggests in his Question today is that the one is consistent with our international obligations and the other is inconsistent with them.

Have another go.

The hon. Gentleman keeps on interrupting, "Have another go". It would be more helpful if he made positive suggestions of incentives to exporters which are within our international obligations.

Is not the Economic Secretary aware that I sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a scheme devised by the chairman of one of the leading steel companies which, in his view, satisfied both the requirements of the hon. Gentleman? Will he please reinvestigate it?

I will certainly look into it.

Concerning our international obligations, surely there is a clear distinction between subsidisation and tax concessions. It is subsidisation which is relevant to our international obligations and not tax assistance.

Obviously, I cannot at Question Time go into the provisions to which we have agreed, both under G.A.T.T. and also as a member of E.F.T.A. All I can say is that we have looked at ways and means of providing incentives for exporters and we shall continue to do so. I will certainly consider any suggestions which come from either side.

Will the Economic Secretary, among other things, look through the Opposition Amendments to the last half dozen or so Finance Bills, where suggestions of this sort will readily be found?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a comprehensive inquiry into the treatment by Revenue authorities in the European Economic Community of replacements of plant and machinery, with a view to making in his next Budget provision to ensure that British manufacturers are in no worse situation in this respect than those of Common Market countries.

I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion for the Budget, although the information I have does not suggest that our system of allowances for new plant and machinery compares unfavourably with the tax allowances in the Common Market countries.

Will my hon. Friend look at this matter more carefully? There is a feeling in industry that in many cases our Continental competitors are much more favourably treated. Will he please look at the matter again?

As this is a complicated matter, the best thing I can do is to write to my hon. Friend giving him details which, I hope he will agree, support what I said in my Answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will remit Purchase Tax on Formula racing cars not designed to go on the roads or to carry passengers, so as to assist manufacturers of such cars to compete in international races.

No, Sir. I would remind my hon. Friend of the statement of the Government's policy on this matter which was given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in reply to his Question on 19th December.

Is it not rather ridiculous to levy Purchase Tax on a racing car that is not a motor car in the accepted sense of the word and which does not carry passengers? Would it not be a great help to our racing car manufacturers internationally against competitors who do not have to carry Purchase Tax if it were not levied on racing cars?

The Commissioners of Customs and Excise are advised that as a matter of law racing cars are liable to tax under the relevant Schedule. [HON. MEMBERS: "Change the law."] Hon. Members opposite say "Change the law", but that is clearly a matter for the Budget. Wider questions are involved and I do not think it unreasonable to expect the motor industry to support motor racing if it considers that to do so would result in benefit to the industry.

Will the hon. Gentleman note in this connection that the Labour Government exempted the Land Rover from Purchase Tax to assist exports and on the ground that it was not a normal motor car?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now abolish Purchase Tax on car safety belts.

There is no Purchase Tax on car safety belts as such.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent his policy of a pay pause will apply to the Government's promise to review the pay and pensions of the Armed Forces at two-year intervals, the last review having been held in February, 1960.

The normal biennial review of Service pay and pensions is taking place in accordance with the recommendations of the Grigg Committee. Until it is completed I am not in a position to make any further statement.

Will the Chief Secretary bear in mind that, since the last review took place, average earnings in industry have increased by about 30s. a week? In view of the fact that recruiting is falling below the target set by the Government, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will have to be a substantial increase in Service pay if the Government are to maintain this promise to Service men?

The Government will certainly bear in mind everything relevant to the question, but the review is now in progress and I cannot anticipate its outcome.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the Estimates Committee's criticism of the Financial Memorandum to the Army Reserve Bill; and what steps will be taken to ensure that full information is made available to the House in future regarding the financial consequences of legislation.

The Treasury have furnished its observations on this to the Estimates Committee. It will be for that Committee, if it thinks fit, to communicate them to the House.

In view of the fact that the House is considering a very important Motion relating to this Bill, and in view of the fact that controversy about the financial consequences of the implications of the Bill has been one of the reasons for the delay in its consideration—which will be discussed by the House today—may not the House know what is the Government's view and whether or not they admit that the Estimates Committee's criticism is justified?

That is not a matter for me but for the Estimates Committee. I must abide by the proprieties here. Government Departments must communicate their observations to the Estimates Committee and it is entirely for that Committee to decide when to report those to the House.

Is it not unreasonable that after a Government Department has made an egregious blunder the Government should adopt the Guillotine method to avoid discussion of precisely the matter which created the controversy at the time and which is likely to remain controversial?

This Government never make egregious blunders.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give comparative figures of the restraint there has been on wages, salaries and dividends since the beginning of the pay pause.

The index of weekly wage rates stood at 120·1 in July, 1960, 122·2 in December, 1960, 125·1 in July, 1961, and 126·4 in December, 1961. During the pay pause therefore the index has risen at little more than half the rate of the corresponding period in 1960, and all but 0·4 points of this rise was in fact due to implementation of pre-pause commitments. There is no comparable index for salaries. Companies reporting in the second quarter of 1961 showed an average increase of 12 per cent. on their dividends and 6·9 per cent. on their profits, whereas those reporting in the fourth quarter of 1961 showed an average increase of 2 per cent. on their dividends and a fall of 3·3 per cent. on their profits.

Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to those sections of the community who have co-operated in the pay pause for the greater good of the nation as a whole?

The figures which I have quoted show that the pay pause has been remarkably effective.

Do not the figures also show that the pay pause has been remarkable in its effect in that it has borne very hardly on a number of workers who are the most lowly-paid in the community? Will the right hon. Gentleman give another figure? What has been the increase in the cost of living, which has borne even more hardly on those workers during the last twelve months? Instead of being so proud of the restraint imposed, is it not time for the Treasury to throw off these shackles and get down to making the economy expand and industry grow?

I am always ready to answer Questions put on the Order Paper and I have answered this one. As the hon. Member knows, what the Chancellor would like to do now is to see conditions created in which this phase of the pay pause should be brought to an end before long and be replaced by an intermediate stage.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fundamental difference between a wage and salary pause and a dividend limitation is that when the wage-earner forgoes a wage increase he never gets it in the future but the dividend limiter is merely postponing his dividend?

The hon. Member will bear in mind that there is another feature of this, too, and that is that 'wages never go down and dividends do.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made towards setting up a National Economic Development Council.

As the House will be aware, my right hon. and learned Friend has now received an answer to his invitation to the T.U.C. to join in the work of the Council. He welcomes its decision to co-operate. The employers' organisations informed him last October of their willingness to join the Council. My right hon. and learned Friend will now proceed to issue invitations to individuals to serve on the Council.

It would seem that all connected with this ought to be congratulated. Does not my right hon. Friend think that this is the beginning of a national approach to these problems as opposed to a sectional one?

I very much hope that the readiness of everybody to co-operate in this will lead to better arrangements than we have had in the past.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted the conditions which the T.U.C. has imposed on its acceptance?

My right hon. and learned Friend had always envisaged that T.U.C. members would be free to report to their own organisations. That was one of the conditions. Neither the T.U.C. nor the employers' organisations would be debarred from continuing to comment on Government policy. As for what the T.U.C. said on questions of wage restraint, I would say that it was good in parts.

Will steps be taken to ensure that this body does not come between the Chancellor and the House, in the sense that communications, political and administrative, and suggestions are made to it first before the Chancellor consults the House?

I can certainly say that this new body will have no executive powers at all.

As the only comment that Parliament has had so far was in the Chancellor's speech and, according to the newspapers, a lot of detail has been given to the parties to the Council, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will publish as a White Paper the actual proposals put to the parties so that we in the House can know what is the function of this Council?

I am quite sure that in due course my right hon. and learned Friend will wish to make a further statement to the House. He received the letter from the Trades Union Congress only last night.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to measure the economic consequences and assess the financial losses to the nation resulting from unpreparedness to meet the extremely cold weather during the period from after Christmas to the end of the first week of January, 1962, notably in the spheres of transport, electric power failures and supply dimming, post-freeze house damage, health and work-absenteeism; and whether he will make a statement on aggregate and cumulative effects of the freeze-up on national productivity and other Treasury aspects of the matter.

The authorities responsible for each particular service will naturally be considering in the ordinary course of their business what further lessons can be learned and put into effect. I doubt whether any form of central assessment would produce useful results.

Is it not a fact that the Minister replying to this Question has overall responsibility for the level of Government expenditure? As misplaced expenditure by public authorities and lack of co-ordination between them was responsible for immense national losses during this period of freeze-up, which would have been immeasurably worse had they occurred outside the holiday period, should not a lead be given by the Treasury to try to avoid such losses in future?

It is a big question whether a lot of investment should be embarked upon for this purpose when there are so many other competing claims for our resources. In saying that I doubted whether any central assessment would be of value, what I especially had in mind was that I was reluctant to put a lot of people on to a big piece of work of analysis unless it was fairly clear that good practical results would flow from a central study of that kind.

On a point of order. Having regard to the nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment on 5th February next.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the economic and financial consequences and results of the pay-pause to date, notably in respect of balance of payments, exports' performance, and strength of sterling, oversea.

My right hon. Friend dealt with these points in the House on 18th December and again in a speech in Birmingham last week. Beyond question the measures he took last July, of which the pay pause was only one part, have proved effective in strengthening our economic position as a whole and maintaining confidence in sterling.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that speeches in Birmingham are not relevant? Will he advise the Chancellor that, having regard to the widespread and malicious propaganda against the pay pause, it would now be propitious for the Government to publish simultaneously all the benefits that have flowed from the pay pause, including restraints in income, the progress towards a proper balance of payments, strength of sterling overseas and all other relevant factors, instead of dealing with the matter piecemeal in the country?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it will be desirable in due course to weigh up all the beneficial results. But we are not through the pay pause yet, and I think we should get on a little further before we announce what it has achieved.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he thinks that a policy which results in falling exports, a falling level of productivity, an increase in the cost output per unit in industry, and falling production is a successful policy? When will he and the Government get their financial circumstances in such order that we can go ahead and expand industry?

Of course, long-term growth must be the object of all of us. If the hon. Gentleman has any doubts about the difference which my right hon. and learned Friend's measures, including the pay pause—which is only one of them—have made, I suggest that he studies the relative strength of sterling last July and today.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that in the first four months of the pay pause industrial production fell by 4 per cent.? As that has been the main consequence of the Govern ment's policy, does he really claim that it is a success?

I have no doubt whatever of its success. We are much better placed for a successful export drive in the near future.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent it is Government policy that when the pay pause is ended priority will be given to the consideration of claims formulated and ready for submission before the pay pause but deferred in special circumstances, as exemplified by those affecting the claim of the Association of University Teachers which acceded to the request of the University Grants Committee to postpone presentation of its claim.

The Government's policy is that increases in pay should be determined in the light not only of the circumstances of each case but also of the whole national interest—in particular, of the need to keep increases in income in due relationship to increases in national production. As regards university teachers, I cannot add to the reply I gave on 21st December.

Does that reply mean that consideration will be given to the kind of special circumstances to which my Question refers? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be very unfair if those special circumstances were not taken into account?

My original reply meant exactly what it said.

May we have some elucidation? Did the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that the Guillebaud comparisons that determined railwaymen's pay have gone by the board and that the doctrine of comparative pay for the same work, which is applied in the Civil Service under the Priestley formula, is overthrown?

I cannot answer all these matters on this particular Question, which is on a much narrower issue.

But does not the right hon. Gentleman remember his own answer, in which he told us that pay claims must be formulated and considered and decided by reference to the national interest and a number of other considerations? He did not mention those factors which I have brought out, but do they still exist?

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question went a great deal wider than the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Harold Davies. Question No. 25.

rose—

Order.

We must get on. Mr. Harold Davies, Question No. 25.

I wish to rise on a point of order and—

A bogus one.

It is not a bogus one—and ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in safeguarding our rights as Members, you intend to allow Ministers to give a series of evasive answers on matters of extreme national importance.

That does not raise a point of order for me. I hope that the House, the Front Benches not excepted, will help me to get rid of this practice of rising to points of order which are not such.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Royal Society about the possible rehousing of the Society in Carlton House Terrace.

My officials have been approached by the Royal Society about the possibility of accommodation for the Society in Carlton House Terrace. The cost of providing that would certainly be heavy, and the Society was informed that it would be difficult to go beyond the offer of additional accommodation in Burlington Gardens which the Government had already made to the learned societies.

is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal Society is badly in need of more space than it has in the premises in which it has lived for so long, and that these houses would be very suitable premises for it? Will the Government go even further and provide a real scientific centre in which international scientific conferences could be held?

The learned societies, including the Royal Society, already occupy nearly 68,000 square feet of Government accommodation rent-free. They are shortly to be provided in Burlington Gardens with further accommodation which will increase the total to nearly 89,000 square feet. I do not think that the Government can be criticised for parsimony here.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much approximately the overseas interest charge would be reduced per annum if the Bank Rate were reduced to 4 per cent.

I assume my hon. Friend is referring to our interest liability on the overseas sterling holdings. I regret that it is not possible to assess such a figure with any useful degree of accuracy.

Since this amount must run into scores of millions of pounds a year, is not this an unnecessary waste of public resources? What justification can there be for this continued high rate for the Bank Rate?

My hon. Friend is right in indicating that this is a burden on the balance of payments. On the other hand, as he knows, the level of the Bank Rate has to be fixed with a number of considerations in mind. The burden on the balance of payments is only one of them.

Why should we have almost the highest Bank Rate in the world?

The reasons for the considerable increase in the Bank Rate last July were given at that time by my right hon. and learned Friend. Since then, the Bank Rate has been reduced on two occasions and the reasons for that have been given by the Chancellor. Obviously, I cannot be drawn into making any predictions for the future. But I will say that, at Question Time, it is quite impossible for any Minister to give the full reasons which lie behind a particular Bank Rate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the banks have been compelled to find £220 million in special deposits in the last six months, if he will take steps to impose similar restrictions on other finance institutions handling very large sums of money, thus strengthening his credit squeeze measures; and if he will make a statement.

I do not know why you do not join the Labour Party and have done with it.

The Answer to this Question and to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is "No, Sir."

Despite the irrelevancies coming from Kidderminster, is the Economic Secretary aware that the responsible bank chairmen have complained of unfair treatment to the banks, in that they are restricted in this manner while the other great financial institutions are not so restricted? Will my hon. Friend study what the bank chairman have said and consider whether the policy cannot be changed?

There is, of course, a real and important difference between the banks and the other institutions. Naturally, my right hon. and learned Friend, and, indeed, his predecessor, have given considerable attention to this matter. I should not like to give the impression that circumstances could not arise in which it would be necessary to impose direct controls over the activities of finance institutions other than banks, but in the present circumstances I think that the approaches made on the Chancellor's behalf are the best method of obtaining co-operation during the present credit squeeze.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will direct the Governor of the Bank of England to submit to him in advance all proposals for the disposal of its property in excess of a value of £250,000.

No, Sir.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that the Bank of England sold this St. Luke's property to the Oddenino Investment Company a comparatively short time ago for £900,000 and that the company sold it a fortnight ago to the L.C.C. for £1,500,000? Would not he agree with a lot of working men that this way of making money is better than working for it?

I thought that perhaps this was the point the hon. Gentleman had in mind, so I made inquiries. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that it was not until some months after the Bank had contracted to sell the site that he was advised that it might be suitable for the Covent Garden Market Authority.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the amounts of foreign exchange expenditure by Great Britain on troops in Germany each year in the past five years.

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

Can the Minister tell the House whether those figures will indicate that on 5th March, when the deutschmark was increased in value by 4·76 per cent. to the dollar, it increased the cost of our troops in Germany? Secondly, can he tell the House whether, after his conference with the German finance authorities on 23rd and 24th March, 1960, on the payment of the Germans' post-war debt to Britain of £67½ million, his right hon. Friend suggested a formula for a payment earlier than 1972?

The Answer which I am circulating will reply to the hon. Member's Question, but not to a number of other rather far-flung supplementary questions.

I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be allowed always to evade direct supplementary questions which are very pertinent to the original Question asked.

If he recalls his words, the hon. Member will remember that he asked whether the reply I was circulating would deal with a number of other matters, and I explained, with perfect

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of post-war credits still to be paid; and what was its purchasing power at the time the money was deducted.

About £330 million excluding accrued interest. It is estimated that their purchasing power would now be a little over half what it would have been when the credits were created.

Can the Economic Secretary say whether when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was framing his last Budget he considered this debt owed by the Government to millions of taxpayers? Does he not appreciate that if instead of giving £82 million in relief to Surtax payers he had decided to wipe out this debt, it would have been wiped out in four years? Would not that have been a more honourable course, since the value of the money is decreasing every day that it is owed?

The hon. Member might also have mentioned that it was the Conservative Government which first provided for the payment of interest and that it was not until 1959 that provision was made for some extension of the con

Will not the hon. Gentleman also remember that it was a Tory-dominated National Government which collected the tax and said they would repay it?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received from the Joint Council the scheme for the building of the National Theatre; and whether he will make a statement.

I have received from the Chairman of the Joint Council a report on the present stage reached in the Council's discussions. A full scheme has not yet been submitted and I am not in a position to make any further statement.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, although the Government have been reluctantly forced to accept this scheme, he will perform no useful service to the country by unduly delaying it?

It is not possible for me or any other member of the Government to make a further statement until a scheme has been submitted to us.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has received from the Arts Council as to the way in which they propose to spend the extra £150,000 allocated for provincial theatres; and whether any assurance has been given that existing aid being given by the Arts Council will not be curtailed.

The Arts Council has informed me of the broad lines of its proposals. The detailed allocation must be a matter for it; I have not sought nor received any assurance of the kind mentioned.

Is not the Chief Secretary aware of the widespread belief that the Arts Council is now withholding support from small organisations such as the Caryl Jenner Mobile Touring Theatrical Company which has been doing very good work in the provinces and in towns where no theatres exist? Will he draw the attention of the Arts Council to the terms of its Charter which prohibits that sort of activity?

We must leave these individual allocations to the discretion of the Arts Council. There may be circumstances in which the Arts Council, exercising that discretion, thinks fit to reduce the level of support given to some particular organisation. I am sure that it would never do that except after the most careful consideration.

Will the Chief Secretary bear in mind that the taxpayers in the provinces pay taxes which go towards the upkeep of the Arts Council, and are therefore just as much entitled to a return on the taxes they pay as are the people who reside in London?

That consideration is present in my mind, and also, I believe, in the minds of the members of the Arts Council.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in obtaining an Income Tax office in the Dagenham area.

The Dagenham Tax District will move into a new building in Ballards Road, Dagenham, later this year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider sending free copies of all Acts of Parliament to rural district and urban district councils.

rose—

On a point of order. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will consider this point. This is the second occasion this afternoon when an Answer has been given to a Question without the Member concerned being present. Is this a new custom?

I think that the hon. Member is wrong. I saw the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) rise to ask his Question.

I was referring first to Question No. Q4 tabled by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) and, secondly, to Question No. 29 tabled by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

That was not answered.

I do not think that anything out of order happened. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) did not ask his Question when he was called. When I have the OFFICIAL REPORT I will look into the matter to see whether anything untoward happened. At the moment I do not believe that there is any irregularity.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not think that the expense of sending free copies of all Statutes to urban and rural district councils would be justified.

Is the Minister aware of the anomalies created by continuing the existing practice based on out-of-date judicial considerations whereby in many counties only the smallest authorities with the least need for them receive these Statutes?

That raises a slightly broader question than the Question on the Order Paper. I agree that there is an anomaly, and I would be prepared to consider it.

Is the Minister aware that quite a number of these local authorities, rural district councils and urban district councils, particularly where they are under Conservative control, do not want copies of these wretched Acts of Parliament passed by their own Government?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the light of the recent report to Newcastle-under-Lyme Rural District Council by its Medical Officer of Health, to which his attention has been drawn by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and in view of the fact that they obscure vision from and interfere with access to the homes of local residents, if he will now give his consent to the demolition of air raid shelters in Madeley Heath, High Street and Station Road, Halmerend, and Hougher Wall Road, Audley.

I understand that the Medical Officer of Health has reported to the Public Health Committee of the Rural District Council on the desirability of removing some of these shelters, and that the Committee has agreed to recommend an approach to the Home Office. No sufficient grounds have been found in the past for demolishing these shelters, but my right hon. Friend will consider with care any recommendation that the Council may make.