asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of business expenses claimed for travel in the last financial year; and how much of this related to travel by air, road, rail and sea, respectively.

I am afraid that this information is not available.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it must be a considerable figure and will he bear it in mind where he is considering policy for Government help to various types of transport, particularly bearing in mind, taking the example of the railways, that only 25 per cent. of passenger journeys are at full fare anyway, regardless of any indirect Government concession?

I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total expenditure by firms and companies during the last financial year for the purchase of private motor cars.

The only available estimates relating to expenditure on the purchase of ordinary motor cars by persons carrying on business are of the amounts o f such expenditure qualifying for capital allowances, which exclude amounts attributable to private usage. The latest estimate, which relates to trading accounts ending in 1961–62, is £175 million, of which £120 million was spent by companies and £55 million by individual businessmen and partnerships.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that there might be a case for examining the possibility of having two different forms of road fund licence and a distinguishing mark between the two types of owner?

I think that there would be very great difficulty in my hon. Friend's suggestion of having different types of road fund licence. There might be very considerable administrative and practical difficulties about that.

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that about two years ago the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was conducting an investigation into the nature of business expenses. Has he any information to give the House as to when the result of this investigation may be available?

The investigation into Schedule E expenses generally—not specifically for motor cars—is not yet complete for last year.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be a good thing to have the owner's name written in large letters on the car?

I will certainly consider that, but I imagine that it is rather more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, whatever is saved in expenses, the Government get it all back in Purchase Tax when the car is bought?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of medical opinion that cigar and pipe smoking may be considered less injurious to health than cigarette smoking, he will reduce the duty charged on cigars and pipe tobaccos.

I will note this suggestion, but my right hon. Friend's predecessor explained in his Budget speech on 9th April, 1962, the practical difficulties in the way of adopting it.

When my right hon. Friend is considering this, will my hon. Friend ask him to take note of the fact that the medical evidence indicates that it might be a positive gain if we could induce some cigarette smokers to change over to cigar or pipe smoking? Will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that in Holland, for example, there is so little duty on cigars and pipe tobaccos that it is more common to see people of all walks of life smoking cigars and pipes than it is here?

I do not think that this is primarily a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer but rather for the Minister of Health on the general question of cigarette smoking. On the question of a differential, the experience of Denmark is that the higher tax on cigarettes has been imposed for the purposes of raising revenue and has been successful in doing this just because it has not resulted in reducing cigarette smoking.

Does it not show a lack of faith in the success of Conservative economic policy when it is suggested that very special additional measures ought to be taken to persuade people to give up smoking cigarettes and to smoke cigars? Are we not all to smoke cigars if the Tories go on governing the country?

I am happy to think so. But I think, on the contrary, that it shows the success of Conservative economic policy that even rising taxation will not discourage people, who have enough money, from spending it on cigarettes.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much higher total revenue from Income Tax and Profits Tax on companies would be in the present year if the same proportion of companies' profits were paid in these taxes as in the year 1952–53.

The tax, including foreign tax, on companies' income of 1951, which was assessable, broadly speaking, for 1952–53, was about 55 per cent. of their income after deducting capital allowances. If the same proportion were payable of their income of 1962, their tax bills would be increased by about £270 million.

Is not that rather a remarkable figure, which shows at least one source to which the Government could look if they should need additional revenue in the future?

It also shows the great expansion in the economy that has taken place under this Government. If one compares the growth of company profits with the greatly increased growth of fixed capital formation, it will also be apparent how wise we have been not to overtax companies.

But does this figure show any expansion in the economy? Does it not merely show that companies are paying a lower proportion of profits in taxation?

Not when the right hon. Gentleman ponders on the remark I made about the great growth, far greater than that in profits, in fixed capital formation.

Would my right hon. Friend resist the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to take away all the extra profits made by business firms, as there will be no encouragement for people to be efficient if he does so?

In principle, it is a good idea to reject suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he hopes to publish the Report of the Richardson Committee on the implications of introducing a turnover or similar tax.

The Report was presented to Parliament on 11th March as Command Paper 2300.

Although the effluxion of time has somewhat taken away from the purpose of my Question, I nevertheless have a note to ask my right hon. Friend the following. First, will he convey to the Richardson Committee the House's appreciation of the expeditious way in which it has carried out its task—looking back to 3rd April last, on the one hand, and forward to April 14th of this year, on the other hand—whatever the sacred cows that might have been demolished and others created?

I will gladly add my hon. Friend's appreciation to that which my right hon. Friend has already conveyed on behalf of the Government to the members of the Committee, who, I think the House will agree, did a remarkable and expeditious job. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on the second part of his question at this time of year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage rise in the motor vehicle duty paid annually on two-ton, five-ton, and 10-ton lorries, respectively, since 1933; what has been the percentage rise in the level of retail prices in the same period; and what would be the additional revenue collected now if the duties had risen in the same proportion as retail prices.

There has been a 20 per cent. increase in motor vehicle duty since 1933 in each of the instances mentioned. In the same period the retail price index has risen about three and a half times. If the rates of duty had risen by the same proportion, the current rate would have been £57 10s. higher than at present for a 2-ton lorry; £161 higher for a 5-ton lorry, and £391 higher for a 10-ton lorry. It is not possible to give precise revenue figures for these categories of vehicle separately

Are not these also rather striking figures? Is it not remarkable that over a period when the cost of living and wages and salaries generally have risen at least 50 per cent. these taxes have hardly risen at all? May not this fact throw some light both on the congestion of our roads and on the loss of traffic by the railways?

It is extremely difficult to deduce from these figures the precise effect on the congestion on the roads. The right hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware of the studies being made of this subject, and it is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me at this time of year to comment on rates of duty.

Nevertheless, will the hon. Member and his colleagues ponder on these figures, even at this time?

I think it is fair to say that a t this time we are pondering on these figures and on other similar figures almost to the exclusion of everything else.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a taxpayer, of whose identity he has been informed, saw, when discussing his tax affairs at the Inland Revenue Office at Harlow, Essex, that his personal file contained a newspaper cutting concerning a strike in which, as a shop steward of the Electrical Trades Union, he had been involved; to what extent it is the practice of the Inland Revenue, when compiling the personal files of individual taxpayers, to include such material; and if he will put a stop to this practice.

Yes, Sir. It is not, of course, the practice of the Inland Revenue to place on their files any document other than one containing material relevant to the tax liability of the person concerned.

What exactly does that Answer mean? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that this document was included in the personal file and that he agrees that it was relevant?

If the hon. Gentleman has studied the newspaper cutting concerned, he will have seen that it contains, at any rate, one set of facts relevant to this gentleman's tax liability—the dates of his discontinuance and resumption of employment.

But is it not possible for the Inland Revenue to obtain all the relevant data in the ordinary way from the employer without going into political or industrial activities like this?

It is, of course, the duty of employers to furnish material of this kind, but it is also the duty of the Inland Revenue to take any information relating to these matters by way of confirmation and to have it available in the discharge of its normal duties in the course of law.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he now proposes to take to bring profits within the scope of incomes policy, in view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government's measures against monopolies and mergers are not to take effect within the life of this Parliament.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the Federation of British Industries have refused to take action to curb profits in order to further the introduction of a national policy, what action Her Majesty's Government now propose to take regarding such a policy; and whether he will make a statement.

The Government have repeatedly made it clear that its incomes policy relates to all forms of income. I understand that the Federation of British Industries has considered three possible schemes for discipline over profits or prices, but has felt unable to recommend any one of them. The Government recognise that there are very considerable difficulties both on the employers' side and on the trade union side, in working out an agreed incomes policy. I think that it is important that these problems should continue to be discussed on the National Economic Development Council. Meanwhile, as hon. Members know, the Government are pledged to restrain any undue growth in aggregate profits which may follow restraint in earned incomes, and the National Incomes Commission is required to report from time to time on the need if any for such action to be taken.

Does the right hon. Gentleman now expect that as a result of recent Government announcements about resale price maintenance, monopolies and the like the N.E.D.C. will now feel that the Government have given a strong enough lead in this direction for employers and employees on that body to agree to an incomes policy?

I am sure that in the N.E.D.C., and through the N.E.D.C., the outside world, there is an increasing appreciation of the crucial importance of a sensible incomes policy.

The right hon. Gentleman replied that the Government have at all times referred to incomes and all forms of income. Can he tell us of even one occasion when the Prime Minister has referred to rents, interest and profits? Is it not the case that on every occasion the reference has been to wages? Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that the F.B.I. has refused to come in, whereas the trade unions have said that provided it is fair and equitable and covers all forms of income they are agreeable to work out some sort of scheme?

I have often heard my right hon. Friend refer to the fact that our policy covers incomes generally. While, as I said in my main Answer, the F.B.I. has rejected the three schemes it has been studying, it is continuing its studies to see whether a further and better method can be evolved.

From where does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expect to get all the money needed to finance all these schemes if profits decline?

There is nothing in my Answer to suggest that profits are likely to or should decline. The words originally used in the National Incomes Commission White Paper referred to undue growth of profits resulting from wage restraint.

Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer given up hope of making any further progress on this matter in the immediate future? If so, would it not be better for the Government to go to the country so that we can get some stability in the political situation and make some immediate further progress on this matter?

My right hon. Friend has certainly not given up hope of further progress in the matter, in which good sense in all quarters points only in one direction.

As the F.B.I. cooperated with a Socialist Chancellor, Sir Stafford Cripps, why will it not now co-operate with my right hon. Friend?

It is quite unfair to the F.B.I. to say that it will not co-operate. It has studied a number of schemes which, on merits, it has found to be defective, but, as I said in an earlier reply, it is continuing its studies and I know has every intention to be helpful.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current purchasing power of post-war credits worth £100 in 1945.

The current purchasing power of post-war credits worth £100 in 1945 is now approximately £52. Since 1959, interest has been added and would now amount to £11 10s. on £100.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the total figure currently outstanding, and does he not agree that this is a most outrageous example of the modern version of robbery without violence? If he is intent on getting a sense of justice and equity into our society, would it not be advisable for the Government to repay this forthwith?

I cannot give the figure outstanding without notice. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have in recent years considerably accelerated repayments. On his comment about robbery, the hon. Gentleman may be consoled to know that the figure had fallen from £100 to £71 by October, 1951.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take the necessary steps to ensure that a married woman, whose husband has qualified for repayment of his post-war credits, shall also be able to receive her post-war credits if she has not been working during the same period upon which her husband's successful claim was based.

No, Sir. The qualifications for repayment of post-war credits are related to the personal circumstances of the credit-holder, and I do not think an exception should be made in favour of married women on the grounds that their husbands have qualified,

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what he is saying? Is he not aware that a married woman who has lived on her husband's earnings since the termination of the war must share his poverty if he is 26 weeks out of work because of an accident? If she shares that poverty, is she not also entitled to obtain her post-war credits? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if the woman had been working she would have been able to claim her post-war credits? Is he not aware that some authorities are paying these post-war credits in circumstances of this kind? Will not he do something about it?

The hon. Member will recall that when my right hon. Friend introduced the system of repayment of post-war credits on hardship grounds he warned the House that this was difficult to do and that if it was to work at all it would be necessary to have fairly clear-cut and definite rules? There was then no question—I do not remember that it was even raised—of passing from the personal circumstances of the post-war credit-holder to those of his wife or the other way round. The hon. Member's suggestion can be considered when the possibility arises of further repayment of post-war credits, but the system was fully discussed and approved by the House.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when "The Perfumed Garden", a translation by Sir Richard Burton, was placed upon the list of books prohibited to be imported; by whom the decision was taken; how many copies were seized by the Customs authorities; when this book was removed from the prohibited list; and how many copies have been returned to their owners.

For many years this book was liable to be seized by Customs officers as obscene on the instructions of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. Four copies have been seized in the last two years. After the book was published in this country revised instructions were sent to Customs officers early in February. Before the instructions arrived one further copy of a British edition was detained by mistake on 1st February last. This copy was returned to the traveller. The four copies previously seized have not been restored to their original owners, but no further copies have been held.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I purchased a copy of this book at London Airport, when I was leaving the country last December, but that when I returned to London Airport in January it was seized by a Customs officer and returned to me a few days later? Is it not a sheer absurdity that the Customs should prevent the importation of a book which can be purchased freely by anybody at any bookstall in this country? Is the attitude of the Government that of an official in one of Evelyn Waugh's early novels: that even if we cannot stop literature being produced in this country at least we can stop it coming in from outside?

I deeply regret that it should have been the hon. and learned Gentleman who was inconvenienced in this way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I said in my original reply that the further copy was seized by mistake. This situation arose from a slight difference in definition between the duty imposed upon the Customs under the Customs Consolidation Act and the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, and the definition of obscenity in the Obscene Publications Act, 1959. The Government take the view, shared by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it is ridiculous to seize books which are published in this country or likely to be published in this country without prosecution. That is why revised instructions were sent to the Customs officers. I regret that the process of transmission was overtaken by the speed with which the company concerned managed to produce their English edition.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the composition and functions of the committees proposed as links between the National Economic Development Council and specific industries; and what proposals he has for financing them.

The economic development committees will be composed of representatives of management and unions, other members with special knowledge and experience, the Government Departments concerned and the National Economic Development Office. The committee's terms of reference were set out in my right hon. Friend's reply of 6th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). There is provision for the Office to meet the expenses of these committees, although I understand that a number of the industrial organisations concerned intend to meet the expenses of their own representatives.

While these committees obviously can do a very useful job, was it not unfortunate that at least in the initial stages there were doubts about their financing, and can he say whether those doubts have now been removed to the full satisfaction of all parties? Should it not be a full Government responsibility? As on the first five committees that have been set up the chairmen in all five cases do not include trade unionists, is there not some danger that the usefulness of these committees will be prejudiced if there is bias in their choice of personnel?

I think that the personalities from all sections of society who have said that they will be good enough to serve on these committees command great confidence. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the National Economic Development Council has the power to pay in the appropriate cases the travelling expenses of members attending meetings and I do not think that there is any reasonable cause for concern about that matter now.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which employers' organisations have refused evidence to the National Incomes Commission about wage negotiations in their industries.

I understand that, with the one exception mentioned in paragraph 168 of the Second Report of the National Incomes Commission, no employers' organisation which has been invited by the Commission to give evidence about wage negotiations has failed to do so.

I presume that that paragraph refers to the Engineering Employers' Federation, since that important body refused to give an important part of evidence to the N.I.C.? As this comes on top of the trade unions' refusal to co-operate in this organisation, are there not even stronger doubts about the usefulness of continuing this body in existence?

No, Sir. The one exception referred to in my Answer is the Exhibition Contracting Employers. As to the second part of the supplementary question, I am certain that the National. Incomes Commission is playing a very important rôle and will continue to play it in our affairs.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ascertain the annual incomes derived from the ownership of tax-free toll bridges; and whether he will introduce legislation at an early date to ensure that such incomes become taxable.

There is no statutory power to require full particulars of the annual incomes derived from tax-free toll bridges. As regards the second part of the Question, legislation in a Finance Bill would be required, and I cannot be expected to comment on such matters at this time of the year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I raised this question two years ago and I have been getting the same, or a similar, Answer all that time? These bridges have been tax-free for nearly 200 years and, on the evidence of one of his own hon. Friends, the current income from one of these bridges in Yorkshire is £70,000 a year tax-free. If the right hon. Gentleman and his Government want an incomes policy to include all incomes, which he said that they did in answer to Question No. 11, had he not better start on these tax-free toll bridges?

I know the hon. Gentleman's point of view but I hope that he will study my Answer. I am glad that it is the same as he has received previously—it only shows the consistency of Government policy.

Does the use of the words "tax-free" in this connection means that income received from these bridges is exempt from Income Tax, and can the right hon. Gentleman explain how that can be so under existing Income Tax law?

The freedom from Income Tax on incomes from these toll bridges derives from 18th century Statutes under which they were set up, which conferred that immunity.

Is it not time that these bridges were toll-free?

That is another question and, in any event, not one for me.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the precise difficulties? He is quite right when he says that he is consistent; he is consistent in doing nothing at all about it. Can he confirm the figure that was given by his hon. Friend of £70,000 a year from the bridge near Selby in Yorkshire and, if his hon. Friend can get the figures, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman get them?

I cannot confirm or deny my hon. Friend's figures for the reason that I gave in my Answer, namely, that there is no power to require this information.

If the right hon. Gentleman cannot tax them, will he nationalise them?

That would make quite certain that they would not make a profit.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the problems of small investors in undated Government stocks; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

I have considered this matter with sympathy and care. I have examined a number of different suggestions for special action to benefit people in various categories who have experienced a fall in the capital value of their holdings of these stocks. It is with great reluctance that I have had to conclude that the objections to all of them are overriding.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I am extremely grateful for the careful consideration which he gave to the latest scheme that I put up to him? Does he not appreciate, however, the very real hardship suffered by holders of Government stock, particularly the elderly folk who hold 3½ per cent. War Loan? Does he not think it is time that instead of the Government regretting bitterly that they cannot do anything about it, they did something about it? I know that they can.

The difficulty in doing something about it is that it is almost impossible to do so without creating a worse anomaly than the one we are removing, or being unfair to other people who have attempted to resolve this problem themselves, or without stirring up for the future a worse evil than the one it is attempted to remove at present.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that before the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) became a Minister he took an active part in this campaign and, together with his hon. Friend, made various statements in favour of this suggestion? What has changed since the hon. Gentleman became a Minister compared with the situation when he was a back bencher?

I said that I had examined different suggestions for special action to help people in various categories. Those I examined included one which I had supported in the past. It was examination with somewhat fuller information than I had as a back bencher that made it quite clear to me that, deeply as I regretted it, whatever one did the situation was likely to be made worse rather than better.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will name the companies concerned in the recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General that certain parent companies have been able to claim repayment of £12 million Income Tax in respect of dividends received from subsidiary companies although tax was never paid in the first place.

It is the longstanding practice not to disclose the tax affairs of particular taxpayers.

Since this is an abuse of the intention of existing tax laws, and since it is at least possible that some of the amounts mentioned will not be recoverable by the taxpayer, may I ask why the Government do not act in this matter? Is it true that a large steel firm is involved in these transactions? Are the Government, with taxpayers' money, subsidising firms which are prominently supporting Tory propaganda?

That does not arise out of the Question which asks me to break a long-standing Inland Revenue rule. The question of the merits of the matter seems to arise on the next Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of tax which will be payable in the current year to parent companies in respect of dividends received from subsidiary companies, although such tax will not in fact have been paid in the first place.

No, Sir.

But why not? Will not this amount increase because of the increasingly beneficial capital allowances? Is not the present situation wide open to abuse by groups of companies, and is it not a fact that some of this tax will not be recovered and that even when it is recovered the tax repayments will at least have been given as interest-free loans from the Revenue to these companies? Why do not the Government do something about it? It is not terribly difficult to avoid this abuse.

The hon. Member is quite right, but this is a situation which in some measure, at any rate, derives from the big increases in capital allowances which, with the general assent of the House, have been made in recent years. The matter is raised in a Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Public Accounts Committee. We shall certainly study the Public Accounts Committee's Report when it makes it. The Question itself asks for the figures. This would involve going into the whole intricate series of tax repayments of companies which have subsidiary companies and would involve an inordinate amount of labour.

Is not this matter relevant to the general question of the level of the taxation of company profits? Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the information in the Gordon Richardson Report in this context? Can he assure the House that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have something to say about this in his Budget statement?

The hon. Member is directly and explicitly invit- ing me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement. That, of course, I will not do.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that Public Works Loan Board interest charges are not increased beyond -their present rate of 5¾ per cent. in view of the effect which increased charges would have on house building programmes.

No, Sir; the rate was in fact increased to 6⅛ per cent. on 14th March.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that; his raising of the rate, after I put the Question down, means that if interest is paid for 60 years on a £2,600 council flat it will cost no less than £9,833, or £538 more than it did a week ago, an increase of 3s. 5d. a week in rent? Secondly, would the hon. Gentleman state what the new rate will be, starting next month, for the 20 per cent. quota of P W.L.B. loans? The local authorities are most anxious that there should be a substantial decrease and they do not yet know what the figure will be.

On the first part of the supplementary question, I think that the effect o changes of this kind when taken in one isolated instance like that can be exaggerated. Most of the big local authorities consolidate their borrowing and the immediate effect is not as great as all that. Secondly, as the hon. Gentle man himself suggested, under the new arrangements local authorities may borrow up to one-fifth of whatever they borrow long-term from the Public Works Loan Board, at the Exchequer rate. Exchequer rates are now varying between 5⅜ per cent. and 6 per cent., depending upon the period of borrowing. One of the reasons for maintaining the P.W.L.B. rate at round about the market rate for local authorities is to maintain this differential.

But does the hon. Gentleman not know that all these rates of interest have been affected by the Bank Rate, not only for councils but for owner-occupiers and for housing societies? Is it not true that the Alliance Building Society has decided not to reduce the borrowing rate as a result of the Bank Rate going up?

The Alliance Building Society has not, as far as I am aware, increased its rate. Movement in the Public Works Loan Board rate is adjusted to the local authority market rate which, as the hon. Member suggested, is affected by interest rates generally. The local authorities, under the new arrangements, are enabled to borrow a proportion of their long-term requirements at the lower rate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Superannuation Act regulation entails the forfeiture of the right to any award when an employee is dismissed for disciplinary reasons.

There is no power under the Superannuation Acts to make any award to an employee who is dismissed for disciplinary reasons.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question relates to a constituent of mine who for 23 years served loyally in a Royal Ordnance factory and that particulars of the case are held by the War Office? Is it not wrong to punish an individual twice for the same offence, and do not the best firms in the country give severance allowance, or gratuity as it is called in the Government service, after a stipulated number of years even though dismissal takes place as a result of some matter of discipline? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to amend the regulations which prevent such payment and consider the possibility of an ex gratia payment to my constituent?

I understood that the case which the hon. Gentleman had in mind in putting down the Question was the one the merits of which he has raised with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War. As my main Answer makes clear, it is not a question of amending regulations. These pensions are governed by the Superannuation Acts, and there is no power under them to pay superannuation in these circumstances.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will designate part of the increased Treasury allocation to Covent Garden to the Philharmonia Orchestra, in view of its musical significance.

No, Sir. It is for the Arts Council to decide what grant should be given to the Philharmonia Orchestra, which has not, I am informed, asked it for any increased assistance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Treasury, the taxpayer, subsidises the maintenance of the Royal colleges of music, that we pay large grants out of the taxpayer's pocket for students, but that in the long run there is not sufficient money to cover the end-product? Is it not rather absurd to spend large sums encouraging people in the arts if in the end there is no outlet for what they have been trained to do? Would not a Royal Commission to find out where we stand in all these matters be satisfactory now to all people at present working in the arts and to the people of the country who are interested in the future of the arts?

As my hon. Friend is aware, Government expenditure on support for the arts has risen very substantially in the last few years. This particular orchestra, whose departure everyone would deeply regret, is, of course, the property of a private citizen who, in the announcement he made about the difficulties of maintaining it, referred to the difficulty in maintaining standards and the contraction of work for gramophone recordings. He did not refer to the inadequacy or otherwise of the grant which is already received by the orchestra from the Arts Council.

I should not support any encroachment on the grant to Covent Garden, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the disappearance of this orchestra would be a very serious blow to the prestige of British music which it has done so much to enhance? Will he at least have discussions with the Arts Council and, if necessary, provide some funds to enable the orchestra to be saved and to be placed on a sound financial footing?

I have said—I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman echo it—that I should very much regret, as I am sure the House would regret, the closing of this very fine orchestra. But, as I explained earlier, the reasons for its closure given by its proprietor do not relate to the adequacy or otherwise of the subsidy which it receives. I am sure that the Arts Council will keep in touch with the position, but I cannot go beyond that.