asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applicants with two A level general certificate of education passes were reported by the University Clearing House as having failed to secure a university place this autumn.

I understand that the University Central Council on Admissions will report on this year's operations early next year. The Council is responsible to the universities, not to the Government.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the strictures in the Report of the Robbins Committee about the absence of figures which the Government can use? Will he give an assurance that the collection of this sort of figure will be very much speeded up and, what is more important, will he give an assurance that the thousands of students who have not secured admission will be guaranteed a place in the next year?

:Of course we are interested in these figures when they are produced. I must repeat that this is the responsibility of the universities. The Council is responsible to the universities and not to the Government. I repeat that we await these figures with interest ourselves.

Surely the Minister has some responsibility to the House for the money that he gives to the University Grants Committee? Will he bear in mind that this information is of serious importance to all who believe in university education?

:Of course it is of importance. I have already accepted that it is. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that the maintenance of academic freedom is also important, and we must not undermine it in any way.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the recommendations of the Robbins Report, what immediate increase Her Majesty's Government will make in the recurrent grants to universities.

:I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) on 19th November.

When will an announcement be made? Is he aware that the university authorities are anxious to know as rapidly as possible, because of the plans that are necessary if a great expansion in the number of places is to take place next year? Can he say when an announcement will be available about these grants?

I cannot add to my original Answer. I can say that this is being treated as a matter of the very highest priority.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now take steps to enable local authorities to obtain loans at lower rates of interest for housing and other socially desirable purposes.

If the suggestion is that local authorities should obtain their loans at subsidised rates of interest, then I could not agree.

Why are the Government prepared to grant loans at specially low rates of interest for some projects—for example, Cunard—but not for the generally desirable projects of promoting as rapid an expansion of housing, school building and other such things as possible? Is it not essential to distinguish between things which are really urgent and those that are less urgent? Is not one of the most vital things to provide local authorities with the finance to speed up the housing programme?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has failed to recognise that grants to local authorities, which is the way in which we help them, will be over £1,000 million during the current year.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that all over the country council tenants, some of them faced with the fourth rent increase in four years, are fighting mad about this and they are blaming their own councils, which are the scapegoats for Government high interest rates? Will the Government reconsider reintroducing the 3 per cent, maximum rate which applied under the Labour Government?

:No, Sir. Our assistance to local authorities is very large and is growing. We think that the right way to subsidise local authorities is in this more open way rather than by providing hidden subsidies in the form of artificial rates of interest.

Does not the Chancellor of die Exchequer realise that high interest charges are the greatest obstacle to the expansion of the social services at the moment?

:It would appear from the expansion which has taken place in the social services in the last ten years that there have not been very many obstacles.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what public investment will be needed in the years 1963–64 and 1964–65, in addition to the estimates set out in Command Paper No. 2177, in order to implement the recommendations of the Robbins and Newsom Committees.

The Government have undertaken to adjust capital grants to university institutions to provide for the expansion of student numbers recommended by the Robbins Committee. The University Grants Committee and the Education Departments are now discussing the best methods for securing that expansion with the institutions concerned; and decisions about increased investment must await the outcome of those discussions.

Questions about the implementation of the Newsom Committee's Report are, of course, far my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Education; but the right hon. Gentleman will have seen reports of the Minister's speech at Rochdale on 11th November, in which he announced increased cost limits and increased programmes for school building, following the Newsom Report's emphasis on the importance of continuing the policy of improving our secondary schools.

As public investment in education in the latest White Paper is shown as falling in 1964–65 as compared with 1963–64—obviously that figure will have to be revised, in view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said—may we take it that a full and comprehensive statement about the sums involved and the proposals of the Government will be made as soon as these investigations have been conducted?

:There was a note in the White Paper saying that the figures for universities would be revised after discussion. On the general development of education expenditure, I think there is a later Question about White Papers on public expenditure generally.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the economic considerations which lie behind the new profit targets laid down for the nationalised industries by the Treasury; and if he will make a statement.

:I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the White Paper on the Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries of April, 1961 (Cmnd. 1337), especially paragraphs 15–16 and 19–23, where these considerations are fully set out. Basically the policy is designed to ensure that nationalised industries should earn a return on the capital invested in them which fully covers the cost of the services they provide and makes an adequate contribution towards the cost of their capital development.

:In so far as these figures are an indication of the expansion of certain extremely important industries, may we take it from the right hon. Gentleman that N.E.D.C. was consulted before the latest figures were laid down? Are the latest figures for the electricity industry sufficient in view of the expected and hoped for growth of 4 per cent, in the gross national product?

The actual figures for individual industries would be put to the Ministers concerned. Broadly speaking, these figures are worked out in consultation between the Government and the nationalised industries. I do not think that N.E.D.C. would be concerned in the individual discussions, but clearly the principles involved are matters we have discussed on the Council.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will implement the recommendations of the Reviewing Committee on Export of Works of Art in its most recent report; and how soon he will establish the fund of £1 million for this purpose.

My right hon. Friend has carefully considered the Committee's recommendations but sees serious objections in principle to such a fund. In particular, it would require special legislation which would have the effect of transferring control of this expenditure from this House to a Government Department.

I agree that it would be very bad indeed to pass control to a Government Department from the House in any matter whatsoever. Is it not a fact, however, that there are serious advantages as well as disadvantages in this suggestion? Does the Minister remember the difficulties we have from time to time, that the Treasury comes to the rescue on very many occasions, but that there is always a flurry and worry and we never know quite what is to happen?

I quite see the point the hon. Gentleman is making. I think he will agree—I am glad that he has in effect said so— that the Treasury comes to the rescue on appropriate occasions. I do not think that the system is working too badly. We are keeping in this country and away from export a very substantial amount of the nation's art heritage.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when considering proposals for new universities, he will establish a university in Dorset.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) on 19th November.

:I do not know the position in Wales, but is my hon. Friend aware that King Alfred is said to have been educated at Sherborne in Dorest? It can therefore be said that we staked our claim a long time ago.

I appreciate the historical value of my hon. Friend's remarks.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for stimulating the growth of the furniture industry.

The steady growth of the economy, which it has been the object of the Government's measures to promote, is the best way of stimulating the growth of industry generally, including the furniture industry. I have been glad to see from recent figures that the level of unemployment in the furniture industry has fallen well below the national average and that the value of orders on hand has increased.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, although in September and October there was a welcome increase in the sales of furniture, nevertheless sales for the nine months to date have been rather Jess than they were in the same period last year? Is he not aware that before a house can become a home it must be furnished? In that case would he agree that to make a reality of the Government's housing programme furniture should be treated as a necessity of life and Purchase Tax removed?

I do not think that my hon. Friend will expect me to comment on the latter part of his supplementary question at this moment in time. He will be glad to know, in view of the first part of his supplementary question, that orders on hand for the industry in September were the highest monthly figure for a few years at £14.1 million.

:While it is appreciated that the hon. Gentleman cannot make a statement about the Budget, may I ask whether he is aware that there have been occasions when Purchase Tax reliefs have been given in between Budgets? In view of the need for people, as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) said, to have a home as well as a house, and of what has taken place in the industry, will the Chancellor consider making an early announcement about the removal of Purchase Tax on furniture?

My right hon. Friend is a man with great capacity for consideration but I do not think that I should set a precedent by saying "Yes" or "No" at Question Time to a supplementary question of this nature.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent it is Government policy to reduce the cost of living to its 1951 level, and to restore the purchasing value of the £ sterling to its pre-1951 figure.

It is one of the primary aims of the Government's economic policy to secure greater stability of costs and prices in the future; but it is no part of our policy to return to the situation which existed before 1951 in this or any other matter.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect the promises made by the Conservatives to reduce the cost of living, make the £ worth something and to "mend the hole" in our purses? Is he aware that the £ is now at its lowest level ever in peace or war and that the cost of living is the highest ever? When are these promises to be redeemed, considering that the Conservatives have been in office for twelve years? Gin he not do something to implement them?

The Question referred to 1951. What I can quite fairly say is that if we were to return to the conditions of 1951 there are few, if any, people who would not be very much worse off.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember the criterion laid down by the leaders of his party—that a Government will be judged by the effect of their policy on prices and the value of the £?

I think that the Government will be judged on this occasion by the effect on the standard of living of the people, and we are happy to be judged on that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount collected in Stamp Duty from local authorities in Scotland in 1962–63; and if he will abolish these duties.

I regret that the figure is not available. As regards the latter part of the question, the hon. Member will not expect me to deal with such matters at this time of year.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am rather surprised that he cannot give the figure of the amount collected in Scotland? My information is that there has been a terrific expenditure by local authorities there on Stamp Duty. Will he take steps to see that this burden is removed?

I cannot give the figure because the receipts are not generally divided up according to the class of person from whom they are collected. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that, in 1953, we gave a special concession to local authorities by reducing the percentage from 2 to 1. When the general percentage came down that figure was kept at the same level.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will pay post-war credits to disabled ex-Service men; and what amount of money is involved.

Disabled ex-Service men receiving a 100 per cent, disability pension can obtain payment of their post-war credits if they have not already claimed them. To pay credits to all disabled ex-Service men would cost about £1 million but I am afraid that I cannot see my way to make this special release.

In view of the expenditure the Government have promised for the future, this sum would not be equivalent to losing a button off the Chancellor's shirt. Is it not time that these men— and in some cases women—who are suffering under certain circumstances were paid their money?

:I agree that the amount is not great, but I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that there are plenty of other classes which could really lay claim to exactly equal treatment. This is not, therefore, merely a question of one particular class of person.

:What steps are taken to bring to the notice of the 100 per cent, disabled their right to claim post-war credits? I have had letters from a number of disabled people saying that they have never heard of this.

:There have been the usual announcements and forms of advertisement, including Questions in the House. We will certainly see if there is any need for, or evidence that would require, any stepping up of the advertisement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy in regard to the tax on ice cream, soft drinks and sweets.

Representations about the effects of the 15 per cent. Purchase Tax are being made to me by the industries concerned. I will give these careful consideration but I cannot anticipate my decision.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look into a number of factors of this matter? The tax in itself has never been a justifiable one in any case. It has contributed to unemployment in many areas and to falling off of demand. Quite a number of manufacturers have sheltered behind it in order to cloak price increases, including altering the size of the commodities. The matter needs very careful examination. When the Chancellor introduced this tax various reasons were given. In view of the professed prosperity he is now preaching, cannot he deal with this more expeditiously?

I will consider any representations on the subject, particularly from hon. Members.

Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind the hardship that this tax of 15 per cent.—

The hon. Member voted for it.

No, I did not—on blackcurrant juice is causing the horticultural industry?

:I think my hon. Friend will recognise that I am prepared at all times to consider representations on this and similar points but that equally I am not prepared to anticipate any decision I may take.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will open a branch of Her Majesty's Stationery Office in Newcastle.

Her Majesty's Stationery Office already has a branch at Newcastle-upon-Tyne for the work which can efficiently and economically be undertaken there.

:While in some respects the North-East leads the country, will the hon. Gentleman see that we are given an opportunity on this occasion of not lagging behind? An extension of such facilities would be greatly welcomed.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that particularly in view of the plans of the Government for the North-East, any new possibilities will be examined in the field covered by the Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of declining home sales, he will reduce the Purchase Tax on bicycles.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary gave on 26th November to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock).

While considering this matter, as my right hon. Friend said he would in that Answer, may I ask whether he will bear three considerations in mind? First, there is the considerable contribution which the bicycle industry makes to our exports and the fact that this continued contribution depends on a prosperous home market, co where sales have fallen by 50 per cent, since 1955. Secondly, 90 per cent, of all bicycles exported, at a value of £ 26 million last year, were manufactured in my constituency and the nearly 10,000 workers in the industry are very concerned about their future if the decline of home sales continues. Thirdly, action is required before the Budget.

I will take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Will my right hon. Friend also remember that if it is fair and right to give a reduction in Purchase Tax to the motor industry because of a good export record, the same principle could be applied to the bicycle industry which, as I am sure he will an agree, has a first-class export record? Will he look at it in that light?

I will do so, but that is a slightly hypothetical question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a working party to consider a procedure whereby rebated fuel may be used, with suitable mechanical safeguards, in dual-purpose engines while stationary; and if he will undertake to amend the Finance Act, 1959, accordingly.

We have already looked at this matter very carefully, view of the fundamental difficulties principle involved, I do not think any useful purpose would be served in setting up a working party. I certainly mot undertake an amendment of the law.

Will my right hon. Friend look at this again in the light of the fact that, as he knows, the British Ferro-Concrete Association has perfected a device which should protect the venue and it seems unfair on the association that it should be penalised because other people have not perfected similar device?

This is a very difficult point and I think that we are right in the line we are taking. But I will gladly look at thin in the light of what my hon. friend says, although without any commitment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he eposes to take to check the type of tax avoidance disclosed in the case of Petrotim Securities Limited v. Ayres (Inspector of Taxes) heard before the Court of Appeal on 12th November, 1963, and in the case of Leibigs Extract of Meat Company Limited and the Sudan Meat Products Limited, details which have been sent to him.

I do not consider that any special steps are necessary. In the case of Petrotim Securities the Court of Appeal held that the attempted avoidance of tax failed. The hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot say anything about the other companies mentioned in the Question.

How can the hon. Gentleman be satisfied with the existing powers of the Inland Revenue to stop this kind of tax avoidance when, in case of Petrotim Securities Ltd. it took a High Court action to stop it, and in the case of Leibigs Extract Meat Co., Ltd., it took an informer to stop it?

In the former case, marketable Securities were sold by the principal company to a subsidiary. Those securities, worth £800,000, were sold for £200,000 in order to make an artificial loss of £600,000. In the case of Leibigs Extract of Meat Co. a manipulation of stock valuation—[Interruption.]—I take full responsibility for what I am saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I have the evidence here.

Order. I do not question the hon. Gentleman's responsibility but this is Question Time. May we have his question?

I am pressing the point upon the hon. Gentleman as to how he can be satisfied with existing powers when this kind of tax avoidance can go unchecked unless there are special circumstances which brings it to light. The manipulation of the valuation of stocks and marketable securities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—has led to the avoidance of revenue. What has the hon. Gentleman to say about it?

:As I told the hon. Gentleman, I quite understand his concern, which I share. But, as I have also said, in the case of Petrotim Securities the attempt to avoid tax failed. The point was taken by the inspector, and inspectors do scrutinise carefully, as the hon. Gentleman knows, any cases where an attempt is made to get relief from an artificial loss. In response to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am sure that he would not wish me to destroy or weaken the machinery of appeal which the taxpayers properly have from decisions of the inspectors.

:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to institute proceedings against, or recover penalties from, Mr. Robert Frederick Soul in respect of false statements made for the purpose of avoiding income tax as disclosed in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal (Soul v. Irving (Inspector of Taxes)) on 18th November, 1963.

The individual in question was sentenced to two years' imprisonment in November, 1960, on charges based on the taxation matters to which the hon. Member refers.

I am obliged for that information, which did not emerge in the report of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal on a dispute on tax liability. Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to consider reaffirming the doctrine of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer twenty years ago, to the effect that the Board of Inland Revenue is not composed of moralists but of tax gatherers and that much delinquency, "fiddles" and "twists" could be compounded for a money price if only the culprits would learn to stop lying and begin to tell the truth? Then we may have more room in our prisons for the type of man who this week was sentenced to three months for stealing a bottle of whisky.

I do not think that any further answer is called for from me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will recommend the establishment of a Royal Commission to examine the present system of taxation, and particularly to inquire into the relationship between tax reform and economic growth.

No, Sir.

:Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that an equitable tax system is a prerequisite of any national incomes policy? Would he also agree that if an incomes policy is to work it must be seen by the public to operate effectively and impartially? Is he further aware that there has been great dissatisfaction over the last few years with the way the Tory Government's so-called incomes policy has operated—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Would he agree that any effective incomes policy must include a proper capital gains tax and a proper assessment of expense account allowances? Will he look at this again? [Interruption.] May I also ask him why my Question has been transferred to him from the Prime Minister? Is the Prime Minister ducking this kind of Question?

As far as I understand them, I am inclined to agree with the first two points but disagree with the last.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to exempt local authorities from paying taxes on the revenue from parking meters.

No, Sir.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that some local authorities are not disclosing the actual net revenue from meters and are diverting money from the original purpose, which is to help off-street parking, and that instead this money is indirectly going to help subsidise such things as public libraries and public lavatories? Is this really fair to the motorist?

:I was asked orginally if we would introduce legislation to exempt local authorities from paying tax on the revenue from parking meters. I have to say no, because local authorities are liable to Income Tax on their trading profits like anyone else. I hope that my hon. Friend is not accusing them of evasion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give tax relief to industrial concerns prepared to introduce generous severance payments to redundant employees.

:Severance payments made to redundant employees by an employer who continued in business would normally be deductible in computing his profits for tax purposes for the period in which the payments were made.

:Does the Chancellor agree that it would be far better for all concerned to put the money away to meet any contingency of redundancy when they are enjoying good times than to ask employers to provide severance pay when they are going through depressing times? Would he not agree that if such a fund were put on one side, under the control of workers and employers, it would be of advan- tage and would give confidence to the workers and that, to some extent, the Government would be relieved of a certain amount of obligation?

That is certainly an interesting suggestion worth examining, but the hon. Member will not expect me to express any opinion on that any more than on any other tax change.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to make a statement concerning the continuing existence of toll bridges in private hands, the proceds from which have escaped taxation in some cases for hundreds of years; and in view of the declared intention of Her Majesty's Government to impose an incomes policy, whether he will now treat this question as a matter of urgency.

I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

:Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that this matter was first raised in the House in March, 1962, when examples were given from that side of the House of toll bridges, one bringing in an income of £6,000 a year tax-free and another, held by a functionary of the Tory Party, bringing in as much as £70,000 a year tax-free? Is he aware that the first example has continued since 1766, the Earls of Abingdon receiving this tax-free income for 200 years? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that I asked a Question and inquired whether this would be looked into as long ago as May, 1962, and he then said that it was under review. When shall we have some results?

:I am sorry, but I cannot say more than I have said so far. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is slightly more complicated in fact than it appears on the surface. All I can tell the hon. Member is that it is not lost sight of.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why a toll bridge is tax-free and a parking meter is taxed?

In this case there is a certain amount of history to the matter.

Mystery.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the costs of the Customs and Excise advertisements of August, 1963, announcing details for the registration of gaming in clubs; and for what reasons were pictures of eighteenth century gaming clubs included in the advertisements.

The cost was £21,920. The picture was included to attract interest and attention to the letter-press, and it seems to have succeeded.

Is this the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to the Government's modernisation plan? Is it the Government's policy to encourage gambling and dress it up in eighteenth century aristocratic trappings?

:With respect, that is a pretty feeble supplementary question. The House agreed that we should acquire information about gambling and gaming. We therefore placed an obligation on a very large number of people to register what they were doing, and we thought it right to use every means we could to let people know what their new obligations were.

:Would it not have been better to have spent at least half that money on advertising disabled people's entitlement to post-war credits to which my hon. Friends have just referred?

:No, because half the money would not have achieved our purpose.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will arrange to repay post-war credits in cases where a citizen intends to emigrate and where he has been accepted by the country to which he desires to go.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some of these cases the post-war credit has been denied to younger people who have not been able to claim because of the age of the person who had passed away? Would it not be better to give them the opportunity to use this money rather than that it should be left for the length of time it may need to be left before they can claim?

I appreciate the hon. Lady's concern about this. I accept that this is a difficult matter but we laid down certain classes of persons falling within certain categories of hardship to whom early repayment can be made and is made. I do not think that I can regard an intention to emigrate as affording sufficient ground for preferential treatment.

Bearing in mind that these are debts which the Government have owed to citizens for twenty years, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is still looking actively for new categories to whom repayment can be made at the earliest opportunity?

:My hon. Friend will appreciate that we have debated this in the House many times before and that it is difficult to introduce a new category that can hold water, so to speak, against all others, but a steady and quite rapid reduction in the total amount of postwar credit outstanding has of course been made.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether students entering the United Kingdom from the Commonwealth pay duty on a personal belonging such as a watch.

No, Sir, provided the article is properly declared and is for the student's continuing personal use.

In view of my right hon. Friend's Answer, may I ask whether he will consider refunding the duty charged to a Rhodes Scholar on an inscribed gold watch when he came to take up his scholarship at Oxford?

:I would be happy to consider any individual case if my hon. Friend will send me details of it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will instruct valuation officers, in determining the assessments of properties in seaside towns and villages, to make a distinction between properties in genuine and continuous residential use and those used for casual weekend and holiday purposes.

No, Sir. Valuation officers are required by law to value residential properties of all kinds according to the rentals at which they might be expected to let.

Will my right hon. Friend look at this Question again? In the minds of people who have to live in these seaside towns and villages there is a great distinction between regular and continuous use and use made by people who can well afford to live in these houses just for holiday purposes. Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries and see whether some allowance cannot be made to these people who do not want to go through all the business of appeal and whose claim I consider is very just?

That would be very difficult. This is part of the basic law on valuation which Parliament has laid down, and the valuation officers must carry out their legal duties.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to follow up his suggestion at the recent meeting of the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council that a forward-looking economic survey of the Commonwealth should be conducted.

I am considering a further approach to Commonwealth Governments.

Will my right hon. Friend understand that a great number of us welcome this initiative being carried into effect? This has been talked about for far too long. What we look for is action.

It is a question of obtaining Commonwealth agreement. We made a proposal. Other Commonwealth Governments are considering it, and we are thinking of a further approach.

Is not my hon. Friend's suggestion relevant to the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works for a Commonwealth economic secretariat? How are Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom getting on with that?

I do not think that that is quite on all fours. On the whole, in the past Commonwealth countries have not been altogether keen on the idea of a Commonwealth secretariat.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, under his regulations, the taxation concessions for gifts given to charitable and educational organisations under seven-year covenants apply similarly to such organisations in the Commonwealth.

:No, Sir. The courts have held that the tax reliefs provided for charities apply only to organisations established in the United Kingdom.

In view of the desirable nature of such trusts outside this country and in the Commonwealth, would my hon. Friend consider this when the next Budget comes up?

If my hon. Friend has a particular organisation in mind, may I invite him in return to see me about it?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will ensure that no moneys or bequests from the late Guy Burgess are transmitted to Moscow to Mr. Kim Philby.

No, Sir. The late Guy Burgess was non-resident for the purposes of Exchange Control. Under the normal rules, any assets of his estate in this country are freely transferable to any other country.

:Is not the Chancellor aware that most people would think it very wrong for currency to go out of the country to this particular individual?

:In the first place, the currency is already out because he was non-resident. In the second place, I think that it is absolutely wrong for the Government to use powers given to them for one purpose for a quite different purpose.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the National Debt Commissioners last met.

On 12th October, 1860.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total and the percentage depreciation since date of purchase of the securities purchased since 1st April, 1962, and held, at the latest convenient date, in the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund by the National Debt Commissioners; and what steps it is proposed to take to obviate any further depreciation.

The total depreciation in the securities purchased since 1st April, 1962, was £262,000 on 27th November. This represents 0.367 per cent, of the cost price. A loss of this order is quite possible from price movements in a single day and is, therefore, within the normal margin of fluctuation. The last part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

:Is not this the last stage of the continuing depreciation of this Fund, and ought not the National Debt Commissioners to have met and done something about it or, failing that, ought not the Fund to have been passed to people who would look after it and have full powers of investment?

I doubt if that would add anything to the wealth of the nation or the benefit of the contributors.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it costs to mint one halfpenny.

The Mint's foreign competitor's do not reveal their production costs and I do not, therefore, think that it would be right to expect the Mint to reveal its.

:Is it not surprising that the Minister thinks that there is some danger of competition in the manufacture of halfpennies in foreign countries? Would it be right to assume that the cost of manufacturing the halfpenny is more than a halfpenny and that, therefore, this operation is a dead loss for the Royal Mint?

The hon. Gentleman will have to draw his own conclusions from the Answer I have given.

Would it be right to reveal the cost of printing the £1 note?

What I have said about the Royal Mint relates in exactly the same way to currency notes.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make the repayment of post-war credits dependent on cumulative and not continuous unemployment for six months.

The present requirement of 26 weeks' continuous unemployment is subject to the modification that intervals up to a total of six days, excluding Sundays, are disregarded, but I do not think that there is sufficient reason for dealing with intermittent unemployment in the way suggested.

Is the Minister aware that in areas of high unemployment chronic unemployment for periods greatly in excess of six months is a very common experience and that his local offices have even advised men to stay off work in order to qualify for the last few weeks of their qualifying period?

I should like to consider the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question; it sounded rather serious to me. He will appreciate that persons receiving National Assistance, in other words, those who prima facie have the greatest need, have only to meet a qualifying period of 12 weeks, not 26.

:Again on the question of post-war credits, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there was a specific promise given in the House by a Chancellor of the Exchequer that they would be paid after the war? Does he realise that, flowing from that undertaking, it is for him to produce reasons why specific categories should not be paid rather than the reverse?

I have already tried to assure my hon. Friend that that is precisely what we seek to do, but it is very difficult, as both sides of the House have found, to produce a category which is absolutely clear and which does not put upon the Inland Revenue, which has no means of making this kind of hardship evaluation itself, an almost impossible task of judgment.