asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the changed Bank Rate has affected the cost of purchasing a house for owner occupation through building societies; and whether he will take powers to control mortgage interest rates for house purchase.

No, Sir, since the rate of interest on mortgages must remain a matter for settlement between a society and its borrowers. There has been no change in the rate since the recent reductions in Bank Rate.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer means that interest rates have a higher priority than homes for the people? Does not he realise that if a would-be house purchaser borrows £2,500 for ten years the interest rates amount to £1,063, and that if he borrows it for fifteen years at the same figure he pays £1,625 in interest rates? In view of the large number of people waiting for homes, will not the hon. Gentleman consider the introduction of new legislation to control these interest rates?

My answer meant exactly what it said. The last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question shows very clearly that it would not make economic sense to isolate this part of the field and insulate it from the Government's general credit policy.

Why cannot we have a 4 per cent. Bank Rate to help the people who are trying to buy their houses?

It is always nice to hear my hon. Friend. That supplementary question ranges rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper.

Will the Economic Secretary ask the building societies why it is that they do not follow the general rule that what goes up must come down?

It may have escaped the hon. Member's notice that the Building Societies Association recommended, as long ago as 2nd June, 1961, that member societies should raise their rates—and that was well before the Bank Rate was raised. The rates charged on mortgages depend not so much on the prevailing Bank Rate as on interest rates in general. The fact that the demand for these mortgages is so high must have some effect on the interest rates. That is only economic sense.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his failure to keep the annual increase in Government estimates to 2½ per cent. in real terms, he will refuse to authorise further long-term projects entailing rising annual costs and so limiting his control over annual estimates.

Some long-term projects must be authorised, even though they entail higher costs in later years. I think it will be better to exercise control over future expenditure by the methods recommended in the recent report of the Plowden Committee.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a growing impression that the Chancellor is, to a certain extent, losing control over his Budget by authorising these long-term projects, and that many of us feel that the control of Government expenditure is extremely important?

I would ask my hon. Friend to look again at the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary when we discussed this matter in January. He showed clearly the Government's long-term policy in this matter. This is too wide an issue to debate at Question Time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of those in Governmental employ engaged on research are working in England and Wales; and how many are working in Scotland; and what were the comparable figures in 1950 and 1955.

In 1960, 1955 and 1950, scientists in Government employment in England and Wales were 3,235, 2,903 and 3,303, and the comparable figures for Scotland were 172, 145 and 109. These figures relate to members of the scientific officer class who are mainly concerned with scientific research and its direction.

Do not those figures reveal the fact that Scotland is getting very much less than its fair share of employees in Government research establishments? Will not he take steps to see that more of these establishments are set up in Scotland, in view of the fact that it already has more than double the national percentage rate of unemployment?

I thought it common ground among all shades of political thought that scientific research does not recognise national boundaries. Research cannot be parcelled out as the hon. Member suggests in his supplementary question.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if growing points for industry are to be established it is most important that research should be situated near those growing points? Is he also aware that considerable numbers of scientists have to be exported from Scotland in order to supply the needs of English scientific research? Would it not be sensible to bring the research institutions to the place where the scientists are being trained?

It is true that where problems are of particular Scottish concern the relevant research should be centred in Scotland—and, in fact, this happens. Herring research is going on at the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen, and work on improving seed potato crops is going on at East Craigs—so the picture is not as black as the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) suggests.

Can the hon. Member say whether there is any immediate prospect of increased numbers of this type of establishment being set up in Scotland, in view of the fact that the Government admit the deteriorating employment situation there, and also in view of the fact—as my right hon. Friend has pointed out—that incoming industry will look for this kind of research establishment in Scotland? Will not he take further steps to see that this is done?

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will take note of all the points raised this afternoon. Perhaps I may give one more example of Scottish research. There is also the National Engineering Laboratory at East Kilbride. It is not quite such a gloomy matter as hon. Members opposite have suggested.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the recent letter from the East Ham Borough Council about the effect of high fuel oil taxes on fares paid by the travelling public, and the need for tax remission in this field.

My right hon. Friend has acknowledged the Council's letter and noted their views. I cannot, of course, say anything further at this time of year.

Nevertheless, would the hon. Gentleman consider telling his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor that it would be a very good idea to reduce this tax burden in next week's Budget, bearing in mind the unfair effects on the travelling public who have to pay higher fares and on workers in the passenger transport industry who have been suffering a decline in their earnings as compared with others?

I will certainly draw the hon. Member's supplementary question to the notice of the Chancellor.

The Government have been claiming for eleven years that they have been reducing the cost of living but have not succeeded very much over those eleven years. Is not this one way in which they could reduce the cost of living?

I can only make the comment that no doubt opportunities will shortly arise when the hon. Member may debate this matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measure of experience of the agriculture industry is possessed by the members of the National Economic Development Council.

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Clive Bossom) on 12th March.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave concern in the biggest of our industries that none of its leaders is on this Council, although it has the best record of labour relations and has done a great deal to reduce imports by increasing efficiency? Will he not ask the Chancellor to look at this matter again and to incorporate someone on the Council with a knowledge of the industry?

The problem facing my right hon. and learned Friend was that if he had followed the road of direct representation of all important industries there would have been so many claims that it would have been difficult to keep the Council to a reasonably small size. He has discussed the matter personally with the President of the National Farmers' Union.

Would not the Chief Secretary agree that some of the employers already appointed are part-time farmers'?

Whatever they are, J think they were an excellent choice.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say which member of the National Economic Development Council is an authority on milk?

I should require notice of that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has now reviewed the proposal for a National Theatre on the South Bank; if, while encouraging all concerned with this project to proceed with it as rapidly as possible, he will endeavour also to secure the preservation of the Sadler's Wells Theatre in Rosebery Avenue as a popular-price theatre serving important parts of north and central London: and if he will make a statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest proposals he has received from the Joint Council of the National Theatre: and whether he will make a statement.

I am not yet ready to make a statement on this matter.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say roughly when he will be ready to make a statement? Will he bear in mind that it is a bit unfair to make the major project, which is widely supported, conditional on the destruction of this much-loved theatre in north London?

As the hon. Member knows, there are problems about Sadler's Wells. I hope it will be possible to make a definite statement within the next few weeks.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the members of the Joint Council of the National Theatre that they should not let their individual jealousies and prejudices for one body or another interfere with the main project, which is the building of a National Theatre?

I hope there will be no jealousies in this matter or, if there are, that they will not prevail. The Government are anxious to reach a right conclusion on this and hope to make a statement before very long.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the current total inventory value of present holdings by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in the iron and steel industry, compared with the total of £364 million for all investments and obligations on 13th July, 1953, and the comparable figure of £199 million on 30th September, 1960; by how much the figure has diminished since that latter date; and what part, ad valorem and percentum, of present Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency holdings are represented by the current aggregate inventory value of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, shortly to be denationalised, including loans under the statute of 1960.

Between 30th September, 1960, and 31st March, 1962, the book value of the Agency's investments and obligations fell by £53·7 million. They now amount to £145·6 million, of which Richard Thomas and Baldwins accounts for £61·6 million, or 42·3 per cent. The company has in addition borrowed £67·3 million from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on his assumption about the date of sale of this company.

Has my right hon. Friend forgotten that the Conservative Party in four successful General Elections has undertaken to denationalise this industry and that has been repeated by Treasury Ministers in 1960 and 1961? Does he not realise that I should feel very queasy, as no doubt he would be in Hampstead and as the Chancellor would in the Wirral, facing the electorate with a charge of political infidelity? Will my right hon. Friend give a clear and unequivocal assurance that it is the intention of the Conservative Party to complete denationalisation within the next eighteen months and before the next General Election?

Like my hon. Friend, I forget nothing, but I cannot make any comment on his consciousness of infidelity. Neither can I add anything to the admirable statements which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made on this subject during the last eighteen months.

Before the Minister accepts his hon. Friend's invitation to commit suicide, will he reflect on the fact that over £100 million of public money is invested in this profitable and efficient publicly-owned undertaking, and it may be that because of the Government's apparent spite and prejudice in wanting to get rid of it the electors are in revolt against the Government at the moment?

There is no spite or prejudice in the Government's attitude, nor are there any signs that the electorate is anxious for further nationalisation.

Will the Minister recognise that in this particular instance an example of political infidelity on his part would mark a reversion to virtue and, therefore, be welcomed? Although he says he cannot make any comment on this matter, will he confirm or deny that his colleague, the Minister without Portfolio, made a statement in a semi-secret hide-out of the Palace of Westminster?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with that matter some time ago. As for political infidelity, I must leave that to the hon. Member.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory Answer, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise this question on the Adjournment on 16th April, with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot).

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what approval has been given by the Treasury in the last five years, under Sections 13 and 14 of the Television Act, 1954, to application of excess funds of the Independent Television Authority; what have been the aggregate sums repatriated to the Exchequer; what consent has been given by the Treasury to advances on capital account under Section 12 of the Act in respect of the new Independent Television Authority London headquarters in Brompton Road; and if he will make a statement.

In the last five years, approval has been given under Sections 13 and 14 to transfer to the reserve fund of £1,920,000 and to payment to the Exchequer of £450,000. Loans totalling £555,000 have been wholly repaid. As regards the last part of the Question, Section 12 of the Act ceased to be operative on 31st July, 1959, and the question does not therefore arise. I see no occasion for a statement.

Is the Treasury satisfied with sums it has succeeded in repatriating from the Independent Television Authority? May I ask my hon. Friend particularly whether he considers that the allegations of opulence and extravagance in relation to the new I.T.A. headquarters in Brompton Road, S.W.1, are in consonance with his economic policy and his policy particularly of wage restraint and stability of incomes, or otherwise?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is "Yes, Sir". The answer to the second part is that I have no reason to suppose that, regarding the new headquarters, the Authority has not exercised a proper and businesslike judgment. May I add that I do not feel the least queasy about facing the electors of Handsworth on this issue?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, following the evidence submitted to the Robbins Committee by the Institute of Physics and the Physical Society, he will take immediate steps to increase the grant to the University Grants Committee so that the minimum requirements necessary to maintain satisfactory university physics teaching and research can be fulfilled.

I have seen this evidence. As compared with the present academic year, the recurrent grant to the universities is to be increased by 13 per cent. next year, rising five years hence to 55 per cent.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the proposals made will meet the urgent recommendations of the Institute of Physics and the Physical Society? Does he agree with those recommendations or reject them?

I do not think it is for me to say whether I agree with or reject recommendations made not to the Government but to the Robbins Committee.

If action is not taken on this matter immediately, repercussions will be felt and delays will take place over a long time. Surely urgent attention ought to be given to this matter? This research is fundamental civil and military research.

Very urgent attention has been given by the Government to the needs of the universities and unprecedented increases of grants to universities have recently been announced.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage increase, at the top of each scale of salaries for principals in the Civil Service and for lecturers at British universities, respectively, has taken place since 1956.

For principals in the Civil Service, 27 per cent.; for university lecturers, 37 per cent.

Does not this show a disparity between what university lecturers ought to get and what they are now being awarded? Can the right hon. Gentleman expect university lecturers to cope with the greater expansion which is needed if their salaries are not kept more up to date?

That is a wider question, but the Government consider that it would be inconsistent with their incomes policy in a field which is entirely under their own control to authorise an increase of more than 3 per cent. overall to university teaching staff.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total expenditure of Government Departments on advertising in commercial television.

The total expenditure from the outset in 1957 up to the end of December, 1961, was £775,910.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that this money could be shared between the Exchequer and the B.B.C. if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get in touch with the B.B.C. with a view to making important Government announcements over the B.B.C. radio and television? Would not such an arrangement benefit both the Exchequer and the B.B.C.?

If the hon. Gentleman would like to make representations, I should be glad to discuss this with him. From the Government's point of view, the important and essential thing is to get value for money, and we believe that on the whole we have achieved this.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration has been given by Her Majesty's Government to the Report of the United Nations Economic and Social Council on Economic and Social Consequences of Disarmament; and what action is being taken along the lines suggested by this report to avoid unemployment in the armaments industries.

The Report recently published is by the Secretary-General of the United Nations not by the Economic and Social Council. The General Assembly's Resolution No. 1516 of 17th December, 1960, requested the Secretary-General to submit this Report to the Economic and Social Council; and it will now be discussed at the 34th Session of the Council, which is due to be held at Geneva in July of this year. Her Majesty's Government are considering the Report carefully in preparation for this discussion. I do not consider any further action to be called for at the present time.

Will the Government do all they can to publicise the findings of this Council in order to reassure people that unemployment will not necessarily follow disarmament? Does he agree that the sooner we divert the money, skill and energy expended on armaments to more useful channels the better it will be for everybody?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's Question gives me an opportunity of quoting from paragraph 173 of the conclusions, which says:

"It seems abundantly clear that no country need fear a lack of useful employment opportunities for the resources that would become available to it through disarmament."

Will the Government consider issuing a popular version of the Report so that it can be widely read and so that the reassurances to which my hon. Friend referred can be more widely understood?

I will pass that suggestion on. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider it. My information is that Part I of the Report is to be published by the United Nations in New York in about ten days' time, and copies should be available shortly afterwards in this country.

How many workers in this country will be affected by such proposals?

My hon. Friend has asked a question which no human being could answer without notice. I must tell him frankly that I still take the same view of his views on this question as I took when he asked a Question some weeks ago. It is quite clear that this country could well find useful employment for all the resources and skilled manpower which would become available.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what improvements in production and exports have resulted from the Government's policy of concessions to Surtax payers and the pay pause.

The Government's purpose is to increase our efficiency and competitive power. The trend of industrial costs is certainly more favourable to exports than it would have been without the pay pause. We now have good prospects for an expansion of production based firmly on export growth; and the Surtax changes which will take effect next January, bringing our tax system more into line with those of our principal competitors, are an extra incentive to make full use of these opportunities.

I hope that the Chief Secretary's optimism will be fulfilled, although it does not seem to have a very sound basis. Will he take the opportunity of next Monday's Budget to withdraw the concessions promised to Surtax payers so that they will be able to take a fair share of any sacrifices which may be necessary to bring the country out of the financial mess into which the Government have got it?

The Government have taken all the right measures to create the most favourable conditions for an expansion of export trade this year. I cannot hold out any special expectations one way or the other six days in advance about the Budget.

Since the Government's policy was introduced production and exports have fallen. Is that what the Government meant to be the effect?

What the Government meant to do was to end the weakness of sterling. Sterling is now strong and people on the Continent are envious of the favourable position into which we have now got ourselves, thanks to the Government's measures.

Is it not a fact that since the pay pause our costs have improved greatly relative to what has been happening in Germany and elsewhere on the Continent?

That is absolutely true, and it is fundamental.

Is it not rather a striking comment on the Government's policy that in the year in which the biggest Surtax cut was announced for twenty years there has also been the biggest fall in production in this country for twenty years?

The Surtax cut has not yet taken effect. As I have said, we are better placed for a big increase in exports than any other large industrial country in the world.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take legislative steps to ensure that increases in dividends do not exceed the average level of increments on salaries and wages.

No, Sir.

May I assume from that Answer that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with a policy as outlined in his White Paper, namely, a policy of restraint on increases in the incomes of those engaged in the public service and in industry while he continues to make fruitless appeals to the dividend hunter? Is that what he calls a policy of equality of restraint? Will not he think of something more fair?

The object of the Government's policy is to secure the maximum growth in exports and in the economy as a whole. In the past year wages and salaries have increased by 7½ per cent. and profits, out of which dividends are paid, have decreased by 5½ per cent.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to introduce legislation in order that the new rateable values to come into operation in 1963 shall be thereafter used for the purposes of Schedule A Income Tax.

The right hon. Member will not be surprised when I say that I cannot make any statement on this subject at this time.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made a very startling statement about rateable values, which are rising, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, by about four times the 1939 values? If the Schedule A net annual values follow the same course, it will mean that Schedule A tax for owner-occupiers and others will increase enormously. Does he not think it is high time that he or somebody else in the Government made a statement on this?

This point has not escaped the Government's attention, but the right hon. Gentleman will hardly expect a statement on this point during this week.

Is it not about time that the Government decided to abolish Schedule A tax altogether?

I seem to remember that this subject has been discussed on earlier Finance Bills. My hon. Friend will have opportunities of discussing the matter again during the coming weeks.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the particular Income Tax problems of men in the 65–70 years age group; and whether he will make a statement.

If the hon. Lady will let me know the precise problems she has in mind, I will gladly consider her representations. But I could not, in any event, anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Does the Financial Secretary realise that for men in this age group who continue working tax can be as high as 8s. 4d. in the £ when they earn £6 17s. 6d. a week, which is 42 per cent. of the wage earned? This largely nullifies the value of their going out to work to provide themselves with extra food and comfort to what they can get on their pensions. Will the hon. Gentleman look at this problem with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to see whether an improvement can be effected?

I thought that the hon. Lady had in mind the position of men who postpone retirement beyond 65 and continue in regular employment for at any rate part of the next five years. I assure the hon. Lady that these problems are very much in our minds, but I am equally certain that she will not expect me to make any further statement now.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will have a study made, and information published, of the effect on British industry of abolishing Profits Tax and substituting a turnover tax on the German model, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Somerset, North, designed to yield approximately the same amount of revenue.

I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

I thank my hon. Friend for that assurance. Would he not agree that our present direct taxation system, on both companies and individuals, is primarily a tax on work and that the more successfully one works the more one is taxed? There are prima facie grounds for believing that other countries manage to raise their revenue in ways which are less predatory on incentive. We are handicapped in making comparative studies until such time as the Treasury will give some facts and figures.

It would not be easy to answer that supplementary question within the confines of a Parliamentary answer. This week it would be harder than ever, and I must ask my hon. Friend to accept my original Answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount was collected during the past year in duty from fuel oil used in buses.

About £32 million.

Will the Financial Secretary ask the Chancellor, before next Monday's Budget, to bear in mind that 2s. 9d. a gallon tax represents a rate of 275 per cent.; that this is very unfair to bus passengers, who are not usually the wealthiest members of the community, and that this is having a serious effect on bus fares and may even cause some bus undertakings to cut their services?

I will certainly bring that point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements exist, or are proposed, at London Heathrow and Gatwick airports for the provision of duty-free shops for transit and departing passengers.

Duty-free liquor can already be bought at Heathrow, and discussions are in progress about the sale in the new long-haul building of other goods free of Import Duty and Purchase Tax. There are no such facilities at Gatwick.

As duty-free shops are being increasingly provided at international airports and are very popular with tourists, whom we wish to come here in increasing numbers, will the hon. Gentleman see that this matter is pursued with vigour?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I hope that discussions about Heathrow will be completed within the next month. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is quite an important point. There are real difficulties at Gatwick. Until the terminal building there is further developed it would be difficult to make further space available, but the possibility of a duty-free liquor counter is being examined.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take action on tax-free incomes arising from toll bridges.

I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend realise that many of these incomes from toll bridges are not only tax-free but also free of rates and death duties? Would he look at this and take some appropriate action when he can?

I have taken notice of my hon. Friend's recent representations on this matter. Of course, there is no exemption from tax for the profits of the toll bridges generally, although in a few cases special exemption is conferred by long-standing enactments.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he has now received from the University Grants Committee about the future status of the Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow; and what decision has been reached in the matter.

I cannot at present add to my previous replies on this matter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he is likely to receive such a reply? Since the new quinquennium starts on 1st August this year, will he bear in mind that an early and favourable reply would be most appropriate in this instance?

I realise the great interest there is in this matter, but, as I said before, it is my duty to await whatever advice the University Grants Committee may think fit to give. I do not think it would be right for me to seek to hasten that Committee.

But is it not the case that the University Grants Committee have given advice lately but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been notably ready to accept it? In this case, are not the facts already fully known, and is not this just a case of the Government postponing a decision?

Not at all. I really think that it would be discourteous for the Government to make a statement about this, having told Parliament that they propose to await the advice of the University Grants Committee.

Is it not the case that this matter is not being inquired into at all by the Rob-bins Committee?

As I said, there is no need to wait for the advice of the Robbins Committee on this, but I do think that it would be right to await the advice of the University Grants Committee.