asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the Robbins Committee to make its Report on Higher Education.

We hope to receive the Report towards the end of the summer.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which is more encouraging than the reply that he gave me last time. Will he impress upon this Committee the anxiety with which all educationists await the publication of its Report, and do everything he can to ensure that we receive it this summer?

I am sure that the Committee and its chairman are well aware of the anxiety of all of us to receive its Report. On the other hand, the House will be aware that this is one of the most important Reports affecting educational matters that will ever have been produced. An enormous amount of work is being done on it, and I am certain that it would be very wrong to try to hurry it up.

In view of the great importance of this question, can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be sufficient time between the receipt of the Report and the opening of Parliament for legislation to be foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech?

I am afraid that I cannot go so far as that. It certainly will not be possible for publication to take place until the Summer Recess.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the £235 million deductions for expenses under Schedule E for 1961–62 related to Dorset, and how much related to the south-west of England.

I am afraid that this information is not available.

Would it not be true to say that these tax concessions, like so many others, benefit only those living in the cities, and bear little relationship to life in the countryside and small towns?

I would not say that. The Answer that I shall give to a later Question may in some measure reassure my hon. Friend on that point.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much, as a percentage, in real terms wages and salaries on the one hand and dividends on the other have risen between 1938 and the present day.

Between 1938 and 1962 total wages and salaries rose by 443 per cent. and total gross ordinary dividends by 226 per cent. The latter figure has been adjusted to exclude dividends paid in 1938 by companies subsequently nationalised. The corresponding increases, in real terms, as measured by the consumers' price index, were 79 per cent. for wages and salaries and 8 per cent. for ordinary dividends.

In view of the fact that those are very striking figures, will my right hon. Friend give them the maximum publicity? Will he further bear in mind, when considering the rather unfair distinction in the tax law between earned and unearned income, what considerable disadvantages drawers of dividends start with?

The latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question raises rather wider issues than I can deal with at Question Time, although we may have an opportunity for a discussion of this sort of thing later on today. On the first part of the question, it is important that all the facts of the matter should be known, and my hon. Friend's initiative in putting down a Question has been very helpful.

Since it is important that all the facts ought to be known, can we be given some of the facts about the amount of capital distributions, bonus shares and various other devices which have been employed for the last 10 years with the object of avoiding the payment of Income Tax by companies, and also to disguise the real increase in dividends? Are not these figures so striking as to cause very grave doubts about their validity? Is not the Chief Secretary really a little frightened to pretend that the increases are in this proportion, when everybody knows that the increases that have gone to shareholders are far greater than those figures show?

The figures I have given are the official figures, and they are true. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, apparently, likes them so little that he tries to denigrate them. If he would be good enough to put down a Question, I will endeavour to give him answers on all the facts available. Whether he will like them, I do not know.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in the last three years grants for the National Art Collections and Museums have had to be drawn on the Civil Contingencies Fund owing to inadequate annual purchase allocations being available to these Galleries and Museums.

The Civil Contingencies. Fund was used 10 times in the three years ended 31st March, 1963, for special grants or advances for the purchase of particular works of art which unexpectedly became available. This has of course nothing to do with the adequacy or otherwise of the regular purchase grants.

Is not it in fact becoming a habit? Why should the Treasury equate the purchase of pictures for our national collections with hurricanes, floods and other disasters? Would not it be better if there were an adequate fund so that the collections did not have to depend on an emergency fund in this way?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have understood my Answer. There is a regular purchase grant to deal with the ordinary level of purchases. This fund covers the purchase of particular works of art. The works of art covered by these 10 grants represent an example of very striking pictures coming on to the market unexpectedly. It is sometime possible to help by the use of the Civil Contingencies Fund and to seize the opportunity, afforded by such works of art coming on to the market, to buy them.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that a celebrated Scottish collection of pictures, the Cargill Collection, is coming on to the market? I do not expect an answer today, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a special grant for Scottish galleries to acquire some of the pictures?

If an application is made, it will, of course, be considered; but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that does not arise out of this Question.

Can my right hon. Friend detail the very large increase which has taken place in the annual purchase grants in the last three years? Is he aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House are grateful and appreciative of the generous way in which he has handled the special grants in difficult circumstances?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. If he would care to put down a Question I will certainly circulate the details for which he asks.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Estimate for 1963–64 for Grants for the Arts, Vote VIII, 16, S, contains only £10,000 for assistance to local museums in schemes of mutual co-operation when his Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries recommended a sum of £100,000 per year.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) on 19th March.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this scheme has been going for about six years and one of the reasons why it lags is inadequate central support? How much longer will it go on dragging before he gets the scheme thoroughly organised over the whole of the country?

The hon. Gentleman related his question to the interesting Report of the Standing Commission. As he will see if he studies the Answer to which I have referred him, that was received only at the end of last year and published in March. It is under consideration in connection, no doubt, with next year's Estimates.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated total cost of the functioning of the National Incomes Commission for the financial year 1963–64; and what amount of this sum will be members' salaries.

£74,000 excluding accommodation and stationery, figures for which are not separately available. Of this £29,000 is for members' salaries.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that, instead of this sum of money coming out of the public purse, it ought to come out of the coffers of the Conservative Party?

No, Sir; and I do not think that people outside who —whatever their views on particular issues—realise the crucial importance to our future of an incomes policy, will grudge this relatively small amount.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a state- ment on the recommendations of the National Incomes Commission in their report on the Scottish Plumbers' and the Scottish Builders' Agreements of 1962, Command Paper No. 1994.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he intends to take on the Report of the National Incomes Commission, Command Paper No. 1994;and if he will make a statement.

I think that we are indebted to the Commission for setting out so clearly and authoritatively its findings and recommendations, with its reasons, on the issues before it. Although the Report is concerned primarily with the Scottish plumbers' and builders' agreements which were under examination, it contains much which is of value in a wider context. I am sure that it can usefully be studied by all who are concerned with the determination of incomes and prices as they affect the national interest.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that the case for the Scottish plumbers and their hours was freely negotiated between the trade unions and the employers, and does he think it wise to use the National Incomes Commission in respect of matters which have been adjusted in a forward-looking manner between the employers and the trade unions?

If the hon. Gentleman studies the Report, he will see that it was well worth obtaining. I share his regret that the trade unions did not exercise their right to put their case to the Commission.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred this matter to the National Incomes Commission in the first instance? Can he tell the House why he expects that workers whose highest average earnings, according to Appendix F of the Report, amount to £15 8s. a week would accept any definition of the national interest from a Commission whose chairman is getting £240 a week for doing the job?

This case was referred because, clearly, it comes within the class of case contemplated in the White Paper of November, 1962, as approved by Parliament. I think that the Report indicates very clearly the value of that reference in the light of the very helpful recommendations obtained. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's reference to the salary of the distinguished chairman is helpful or relevant.

Does not the Chief Secretary realise that this is a very expensive way of getting an essay on wages and hours which has been made available in other forms by a number of other bodies on previous occasions? As he has now answered by hon. Friend's question about what action he proposes to take, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the sooner he abolishes this Commission—if he really wants to get an incomes policy working —the more likely he is to achieve that?

One must remember the immense importance which, as I know the hon. Gentleman will agree, attaches to the proper development of an incomes policy in this country. I think that upon reflection the hon. Gentleman will agree that a contribution of this kind was well worth obtaining.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my view this Commission makes absolutely no contribution at all to the securing of a national incomes policy, that it is nothing but an irritant and that the Chancellor would be well advised to abolish it?

I note the hon. Gentleman's view. But I am bound to say that I think that in this, as in so many other respects, he is in a conspicuous minority.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the nature of the representations he has received from the building trade operatives in Scotland following the publication of the National Incomes Commission Report, Command Paper No. 1994; and what was the nature of his reply.

No such representations have been received. The question of a reply does not therefore arise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that representations will be coming forward? Is he aware that the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to refer this matter to the National Incomes Commission has roused deep resentment in the Scottish building industry, and that there is no doubt about that? Is he further aware that the accident rate in this industry is greater than in any other? Did the Chancellor give sufficient consideration to this before making the reference, and would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are many activities in this country which the Commission might explore before coming to the question of workers' wages and hours which have been freely arrived at after negotiation?

If representations are coming forward in the future, they will be answered in the future. I cannot anticipate them. I do not believe that the interests or feelings of anybody could, or should, be hurt by an impartial analysis of the facts.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the two tables on profits in the construction industry supplied by Her Majesty's Government to the National incomes Commission and referred to in paragraph 161 of the Commission's Report.

Yes, Sir.

What steps does the Economic Secretary propose to take to enforce the 3½ per cent. limit on profits when he restricts increases in workers' wages to 3½per cent. per annum?

There is another Question on that subject to which we shall come in a few moments. If the hon. Member will be patient, he will get the answer then.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will refer to the National Incomes Commission the question of the recent pay award to doctors.

No, Sir.

Why not?

For the reasons already very clearly explained in the White Paper laid last November.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these doctors got a very much greater increase than that for which the Scottish plumbers were asking, and yet the claim of the Scottish plumbers was referred to the National Incomes Commission? Is he aware that the 16 per cent. given to the doctors over three years represents more than 7 per cent. per annum, which is more than twice what the Chancellor of the Exchequer regards as in the national interest? Is this the way the right hon. Gentleman and the Government hope to get general acceptance of a national incomes policy, when there is such a great difference between the treatment of doctors and Scottish plumbers?

If the hon. Gentleman studies the Report of the Review Body on the remuneration of doctors, he will see, first, that it recommended that these proposals should run for at least three years. Secondly, it explicitly took account of changes taking place before the beginning of that period; and therefore the figure recommended—which is actually 14 per cent.—is spread over a number of years.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that profits do not exceed an annual increase of 3½ per cent.

I should point out that the word "distributed" should come before the word "profits" in the Question.

I think that rather alters the sense of the Question, but the Answer to the one on the Order Paper is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an undertaking in this House on 26th July last that

"the Government will, by fiscal or any other appropriate means, restrain any undue growth in aggregate profits which might follow from restraint in wages and salaries."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 26th July, 1962; Vol. 663, 1763]

Surely if we want to get acceptance of this policy there must be a sense of justice and fair play in respect of all forms of income. Any glance at any of our financial newspapers will show that ½ per cent. is certainly not regarded as applicable to them by many companies which are presently declaring very considerable increases in dividends. I have a list to which I could refer the hon. Member.

I agree completely with what the hon. Member said in the first part of his supplementary question. As a matter of fact, ever since 1958 gross trading profits of companies increased at an average annual rate of 3½ per cent., which is precisely the figure commended by the hon. Member, and I do not see any need to take the suggested action.

The Question is not concerned with gross profits but with the growth of income by distributed profits, and the increase in the last 10 years has been over 160 per cent.

The hon. Member will appreciate that there is some difficulty here because he is now asking a question somewhat different from that which appears on the Order Paper. If he will be good enough to table a fresh Question, I shall do my best to answer it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that income from rents does not exceed an annual rate of 3½ per cent.

The Question should refer to an "annual increase".

For the second time I shall do my best to answer. The Answer to the Question appearing on the Order Paper is: No, Sir. But I accept that it would be wrong if rental income—or indeed any other form of personal income —were to rise excessively in relation to the growth of the economy.

If the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it would be wrong for a larger increase to take place in income from rents than 3½ per cent., surely there is an obligation on the Government to do something about it? Otherwise, the whole of the business the Government are going through is a piece of nonsense.

I do not art the moment see any need for corrective action. It should be remembered that rent accounts for only 5 per cent. of total domestic incomes today compared with 9½ per cent. before the war. If there has been some increase in recent years, that is entirely due to the fact that rents have been artificially kept down for a very long time.

How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that answer with his previous Answer? Is he not aware that since the new index was constructed, on 16th January, 1962, the increase in rents, which forms part of the retail price index, has been over 5 per cent.? How does he reconcile that with his view that it should not exceed an increase of 3· per cent? Will he take some action or does he want us to conclude that the Government's policy is to let prices go up and to keep wages down?

The Government's policy is nothing of the sort, as the hon. Member knows very well that the figures show.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will exempt from Purchase Tax self-lift chairs purchased by persons who could obtain medical evidence of the need for such chairs.

No, Sir. It is a general principle that Purchase Tax liability depends on the character of an article and not on its intended use in an individual case.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a very disappointing reply, particularly as these chairs are used almost exclusively by old people in homes and hospitals? Can he give further consideration to this matter?

I will certainly look at the matter again as my hon. Friend asks, but I have already been into it with a great deal of care. He will recall that he has had substantial correspondence on the matter with the Treasury. He will, therefore, perhaps appreciate why the situation must remain as it is.

Who does the Treasury think use self-lift chairs other than invalids?

It is not suggested that anyone else does. The point is that in the case of some of these chairs the self-lifting device would cost less than the amount of Purchase Tax, and if the regulations were changed there would be substantial scope for avoidance. It is in order to protect the Revenue that the current rates are kept.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many courses are being held on the design of machine tools in higher educational institutions.

The Manchester College of Science and Technology provides a diploma course in machine tool technology and design; it also provides a course in machine tool technology leading the degree of Master of Technical Science. In addition, there are many other full-time courses elsewhere in higher education, which deal primarily or substantially with machine tool technology. I am circulating a note about these in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will remove the Excise duty on fruit juice where the fruit content is over 40 per cent., and in particular on blackcurrant juice.

I assume my hon. Friend is referring to Purchase Tax. The Answer is "No, Sir".

Will my hon. Friend look at this matter again, because the Purchase Tax on all fruit juices is having a very harmful effect on the horticultural industry and serious repercussions in many parts of the country, particularly among smaller members of the farming community?

I recognise the special interest and knowledge of my hon. Friend in this matter. It is good to see that sales are recovering somewhat, but I am afraid I must tell my hon. Friend frankly that this decision must stand.

Will the hon. Gentleman take action immediately, because the rapid increase in the price of sugar is making the position of manufacturers of fruit juices and soft drinks almost impossible? It is imperative that the Purchase Tax on these fruit juices should be removed because of the cost of sugar.

I refer the hon. Member to a Written Answer I gave on the subject yesterday.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to increase the limit which at present applies to the sums which may be invested in credit unions.

I know of no general restrictions on credit unions of the kind to which the hon. Member refers.

Is the Minister aware that a group of responsible individuals in Coatbridge led by people who have associations with the credit unions from the Colonies, and from Canada and America, have attempted to establish such an organisation, but they were assured by the Treasury that the maximum imposition for an individual subscriber is £50; and, as a result, this inhibits the development of the scheme? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the purpose of the scheme is to lend for housing improvements at an interest rate of from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent.? Is not that something to be desired? Will the hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?

I am happy to answer the final part of that supplementary question in the affirmative. If the hon. Member writes to me giving full details of what he has in mind, I shall do my best to help him, but the point at the moment is that we cannot be clear what he has in mind. I repeat that I shall be very ready to help him if he lets me know what he wants.

Is the Minister aware that I wrote to him? Is he further aware that I gave him an illustration of the scheme and of the effect of this imposition which the Treasury insists upon, which must be abolished?

No, Sir. I am not aware that the hon. Member has written to me, or I should not have given the Answer I gave. As he has brought the matter to my attention, I shall, of course, look into it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a further statement on economic aid for India; and what position has been reached in the discussions on this subject by the consortium of powers providing this aid.

The question of the possibility of further economic aid for India is under discussion, and the Consortium of donor countries will meet again in Paris on 4th June. The House will be well aware of the heavy commitments we in this country have already undertaken in respect of both military and civil aid for India.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny—I hope he will deny—reports which have appeared in the Press during the past few days that we intend to reduce the economic aid because of the increased military aid?

Order The form of that question is a little out of order. One may not ask a Minister to confirm or deny reports in the Press for which the Minister is not responsible. Perhaps the hon. Member can turn the question round in some way.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the Government's intention to increase or decrease economic aid to India? Does he agree that in the present situation it is urgent to increase economic aid, nor least for strategic reasons?

I cannot go further about economic aid than my main Answer, which includes the statement that the members of the Consortium are meeting on 4th June.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it would be regarded as extremely unsatisfactory if the Government said that they must do a bargain with India, and that, because we have supplied increased military aid, we shall have to decrease the amount of economic aid? Is he aware that if he takes that view Members on both sides of the House will find themselves in disagreement with the Government?

The hon. Member's question consists of two hypotheses. I feel no necessity to comment on either of them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what communication he has recently received from the Secretary of the Clyde Fishermen's Association on the question of fishermen's boats and gear being considered mobile equipment for the purposes of taxation; and what was the nature of his reply.

My right hon. Friend received a letter from this Association on this subject and a reply has been sent on his behalf. This explains the objections to this proposal on the lines of what was said by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in reply to an Amendment on Tuesday.

Is the Minister aware that the lack of understanding and sympathy shown in this correspondence is calculated to make every fisherman on the Clyde seasick?

That is, indeed, putting it very high.

Is the rule which the right hon. Gentleman has just adumbrated to apply to all fishermen, including those in north-east Scotland, or is it an invidious practice relating only to the Clyde fishermen? How much does the right hon. Gentleman expect to raise by this means? Does he realise that it is an imposition on the fishing community, which is already hard hit?

I did not adurnbrate any rule whether with respect to the Clyde or with respect to the North-East Coast. The hon. and learned Member spoke of an imposition. What we were discussing was a very generous tax allowance made in the Finance Bill.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the £226,000 granted to the Save the Children Fund from the Lord Mayor of London's Hungarian Refugee Appeal Fund was given on the understanding that it was to help Hungarian refugee children in Austria; what was the nature of the undertaking received by his Department before consent was granted to transfer this money abroad; and, in view of the fact that none of it has been used for that purpose, if he will not allow any more exchange control applications by this organisation.

All I can add to my Written Answer on 30th April to my hon. Friend tie Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) is that any further applications would, as in the case of all bona fide charitable organisations, require to be supported by a satisfactory assurance that the funds will be put to a genuine charitable use.

Many charges are being made against the Save the Children Fund by the Direct Aid to the Refugees in Europe on the ground that it has misappropriated funds, and that £226,000 has not been used for the care of Hungarian refugee children. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these charges, and counter-charges by the Save the Children Fund against D.A.R.E., are causing immense harm to both these charitable organisations and many others and that many people are losing faith in these charities? Does he not feel that there ought to be an inquiry to clear up the matter once and for all?

I think that the important part of the hon. Member's supplementary question relates to the point that there appear to be two sides to this matter.

Is the Minister aware that the Save the Children Fund is one of the most reputable organisations in this country or anywhere? Having served it myself for the last 13 or 14 years, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) that I shall be glad to give him details so that he will know in future that some of this information is quite wrong.

The hon. Member has been good enough to illustrate my point.