Looking back over the Revenue for the past year, the Budget estimate of £1,187 million for Customs and Excise was reduced to £1,184 million by concessions which I gave, following most persuasive representations, in Committee. during the passage of the Finance Bill. The receipts were, exactly, £1,184 million, to the nearest million. We hit the target exactly, in spite of the fact that I lost £52 million on beer, owing to the fact that there was less barley for brewing. That was not my fault. But this loss of revenue on beer was almost exactly balanced by a series of surpluses from tobacco, entertainments, Purchase Tax and other import duties. Tobacco brought in £446 million, £21 million more than the estimate. Entertainments Duty, in spite of remissions which I gave in my last Budget on a wide range of sports, none the less yielded £53 million, or £3 million more than the 'estimate. Purchase Tax yielded £181 million, £23 million more than the estimate. The duties under the Import Duties Act yielded £29 million, or £7 million more than the estimate.

Turning to the other great branch, the Inland Revenue, these duties, last year, yielded £1,777 million, a surplus of £9r million over the estimate. Income Tax at £1,156 million beat the estimate by £45 million. Excess Profits Tax and Profits Tax together, at £358 million, beat the estimate by £33 million. Stamps, at £38 million, beat the estimate by £9 million. On the Stock Exchange, there was a high, and sometimes even hectic, level of activity during the year. Stockbrokers have done very well under this Government. They have almost the least cause of all to complain. Death Duties at £148 million beat the estimate by £8 million. Surtax at £76 million, alone of the Inland Revenue duties, fell short of the estimate by £4 million, but, even so, it brought in £7 million more than in the previous year, although the rates of tax were still the same—[ Interruption.] No, the right hon. Gentleman must not assume that. The higher rates—I was about to emphasise this to the Committee—which were imposed in my Budget of October, 1945, in partial compensation for reliefs in Income Tax, only come into effect for the first time this year. They will normally be paid in January next by those happy persons entitled to pay them. This increase in Surtax is therefore all the more satisfactory, from the revenue point of view. I have made inquiries regarding Surtax collection, and I find that there are consider. able arrears of Surtax still to be gathered in. I have given instructions to the officers concerned that these overdue contributions from well-to-do people, shall be energetically collected.

Miscellaneous Revenue in 1946–47 brought in £380 million, £92 million more than the estimate. This substantial surplus was made up of £4 million more than the estimate for motor vehicle duties, £6 million more from the sale of war stores, £9 million more from the trading surpluses of Government Departments—for which I have to thank, principally, my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade. £5 million more from wireless licences, £12 million more from repayment of the so-called "Sundry Loans" and £56 million more from Miscellaneous Receipts—a number of small items. Therefore, last year's total revenue from all sources was £3,341 million, or £180 million more than the estimate. The revenue was indeed buoyant, and we have nothing to regret in this state of affairs. We collected £180 million more than the estimate for the revenue last year.

Turning to expenditure last year, the total was £3,910 million, which was £23 million more than last April's estimate of £3,887 million. Defence expenditure, which I estimated at £1,667 million, amounted in fact to £1,653 million, a saving of £14 million on the Estimate. Supplementary Estimates for the Army and Navy were offset by meritorious savings of £60 million by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. Civil expenditure I put at £1,652 million last April. The actual expenditure was £1,679 million, or £27 million more than the Estimate.

Let us halt at this point and see what we have done. During this last year we have made history in the Social Services We have mounted, without halt or hesitation, the great social programme which the electors voted for, when our majority was returned. The National Insurance Act, the National. Health Services Act and the Industrial Injuries Act have been placed upon the Statute Book. Family allowances have been paid as from 1st August, 1946, and the higher old age pension has been paid as from the beginning of last October. We are entitled to say that the new Britain, represented by this House of Commons, has taken the cost of social security proudly in its stride; the money has been found, the Measures have been passed, and the benefits are being enjoyed by those entitled to them.

Including Supplementary Estimates, we provided last year no less than £441 million for Social Services, or £117 million more than in 1945–46. For education, we provided £139 million, or £31 million more than in the previous year. For training and resettlement, we provided £22 million, or £9 million more than the previous year For housing subsidies, we provided £27 million, or £10 million more. [ Interruption.] The houses were built, or the subsidies would, not have been paid—the right hon. Gentleman must not be in error about

that. For a variety of health services, we provided £7 million, or £6 million more than the year before. For health and unemployment insurance we provided £50 million, or £9 million more. For old age and widows' pensions we provided £156 million, or £14 million more; and, for the first year of payments of Family Allowances, we found £38 million. All that is, I think, very pleasing to all hon. Members of the Committee, because we feel that those who are deriving benefits from this expenditure fully deserve them.

Less pleasing to me are some of the other Supplementary Estimates which we have had to vote—£39 million for the Control Office, in addition to the original estimate of £80 million, to feed and administer the Germans in our zone. Our military costs are, of course, extra to these. And £19 million more than we bargained for in Greece. I would emphasise that, unhappily for us, food prices have gone on rising all over the world, and we have, therefore, had to vote a supplementary sum of £50 million for purchases by the Ministry of Food. We are glad to have the food, but are sorry that it costs so much. Consolidated Fund services at £578 million, were £10 million above the estimate. Thus, if I may sum up in a sentence, with the expenditure £23 million more, and the revenue £180 million more than the estimate, the deficit, at £569 million, was £157 million less than I had foretold.

Before I leave 1946–47, I think that I should report briefly to the Committee on the first year's working of the National Land Fund, which we established last year. None of the principal of this Fund, which amounts to £50 million and is safely and properly invested in Government securities—it is a proper Fund, not just a bookkeeping entry—and a large part of which, as I told the Committee last year, I regard as a nest egg for national parks and similar projects in the future, has yet been spent; and our commitments up to date will be well covered by the interest on the capital—which is sound finance. But these commitments already cover payments to the Inland Revenue from the Fund in respect of five properties which have been accepted in satisfaction of Death Duties. The first of these five properties consists of 33,000 acres—a large acreage—nearly half the county of Merioneth, including Lake Bala and some adjacent mountain slopes, an area of great beauty in the heart of Wales, and in the heart of Welsh culture. I contemplate that this estate will be most sympathetically owned and administered, I hope, as a whole and as a unit, with a special care for increased food production, for the welfare of the present tenants of the estate, and also for improved facilities, hitherto rather neglected in this area, for visitors and holiday-makers.

The second and third properties are both in the Lake District, 1,800 acres including Lake Brotherswater, a beautiful lake, and a smaller area of 800 acres, not far away at Troutbeck, including a picturesque 17th century farmhouse among the fells. Both these properties, it seems to me, could best be handled by the National Trust, which has an ever-growing holding of land, of course, in the Lake District. The two remaining properties are in the West Country. One is Cotehele, the medieval mansion of the Mount Edgcumbe family, 12 miles up the River Tamar from Plymouth. This is one of the oldest inhabitated houses in Britain, and is a very fine example, both in its exterior and its furnishings, of one of the great periods of English architecture. It would have been a great pity if it had been lost. It will be held, together with 1,300 acres, on behalf of the nation by the National Trust. Finally, I am handing over to the Youth Hostels Association a modern seaside house, with three acres of land, on the North Cornish cliff, near Padstow. This house is specially suited to be used as a hostel, for the enjoyment of young people with not much money to spend, and it completes the chain of hostels held by the Association in this part of the country. I hope and believe that this is only the first of a series of such arrangements which we shall be able to make for the benefit, not only of these bodies I have named, but for other non-profit-making bodies of the same kind. England and Wales have made a good start in this first year. Scotland, I hope, is going to give us something in the second year.

I turn from these retrospects to the prospects for 1947–48. I estimate expen- diture this year—that is, of course, the year which began on 1st April, a fortnight ago—at £3,181 million. That is a reduction of £729 million, or 19 per cent. on the actual expenditure of last year—not on the estimates, but on the actual expenditure. As the Committee knows, this expenditure falls into three parts. First, there is Defence; second, the Civil and Revenue Departments; and, third the Consolidated Fund Services, mainly the interest on the National Debt. Defence expenditure—including the military element of the Ministry of Supply, which has a civil element also—will be £899 million. Last year, it was £1,653 million and we have, therefore, made a reduction of no less than £754 million, or 46 per cent. on last year. If we exclude terminal charges—gratuities to soldiers, sailors and airmen on discharge, release leave and clothing, the termination of contracts, and so on—the reduction is, indeed, less, from £1,091 million, to £780 million, or a reduction of 28 per cent. As we all are, I am counting on a further substantial reduction next year.

Civil and Revenue Departments, including the civil element of the Ministry of Supply, will cost this year £1,726 million, or £47 million more than last year's actual expenditure. That is, of course, a final figure, after many pluses and minuses, and many changes, some up and some down, in the Estimates of Civil Departments. We are getting big savings in the wartime services, which are now fast fading out of the picture. We shall be providing £40 million less this year than last for the hire and operation of ships on behalf of the Ministry of Transport. We shall be saving million on the provision for Civil Defence and the emergency services of the Home Office, and—a very substantial economy—we shall need to find this year, as a final contribution, only million for U.N.R.R.A., which last year cost £90 million, a saving of £89 million. On the other hand, we shall be providing more in various other directions.

We shall be providing £29 million more for education this year, including such things as school dinners, further education of demobilised men and women, more scholarships, and the raising of the school-leaving age. The raising of the school-leaving age, which is an educational re- form long promised and, with a variety of excuses, too long withheld, represents, in the view of the Government, a fresh social investment in the minds, the bodies and the characters of our young generation. I am quite sure that we shall reap rich rewards, and soon, from this new educational adventure. Looking back, it is interesting to recall that this would have come about in 1932, but that Sir Charles Trevelyan's Bill to raise the school leaving age, having passed through this House, was thrown out in another place. Those who did that have kept the children waiting 15 years, and, in our view, it is time to put an end to this folly. Included in the educational increase is an additional £3 million for the universities. The total estimate for the universities of £12 million of public money this year is more than five times the prewar figure. It includes £8 million for current grants and £3½ million for capital grants. The universities must be enabled to play a fuller part than ever before in our national life, and to double the prewar total of their students within a period of ten years. We have set that as the target, and we believe that money spent on a planned expansion of this kind will be money very well spent in the national interest.

We are providing this year £25 million more for housing and for the preliminary expenses of the National Health Service. We have provided £23 million more for the Ministry of National Insurance, for a full year's provision, this year, of Family Allowances. The Committee will be glad to know, in regard to these allowances, that they are costing us this year £4 million more than we had expected. And I am told that there are some 200,000 more eligible babies than were allowed for by the actuaries. The actuaries thought, however, that the, school-leaving age would have been raised sooner. So they were doubly wrong. Even actuaries may err. We may sum it up by saying that we have done worse than they expected in education, but better in procreation. And, of course, there is an extra pay day for mother in leap year, next year being a leap year. So much for family allowances at this stage.

We shall also provide £4½ million more this year for the Development Areas, in regard to which, and only in regard to which, I used the phrase about what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) so originally called my "cardiac murmurs." It is in regard to expenditure here, and only here, that I said that I would find all the money, with a song in my heart, to build factories and to employ the men and women in these areas. We shall provide £4½ million more this year for the Development Areas, for the acquisition of land and for building new factories. My right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have been in consultation on the matter, and we both agree that this factory proposal has been marching too slowly. Those responsible are now being prodded by my right hon. Friend, and we hope soon to have a rather quicker rate of advance. In these days of widely advertised labour shortage, we cannot tolerate the continuance of local unemployment in these areas. Therefore, we are doing our best to speed things up, and we are very willing to be stimulated and criticised in this regard, as it will only urge us on to do even more than we are seeking to do at the present time.

We are providing £10 million more this year for roads, of which I am glad to say million are going to be spent in the Development Areas; and we are providing million more for State forestry which I warmly commended to the Committee last year as a very good Socialist investment in land and young trees. I am also pledged—and I am happy to be pledged, though "happy" is not quite the word; am very content to be pledged—to provide a sum, the total of which I cannot yet determine, to carry out the Government's promise to help to make good, as soon and as completely as possible, the loss and damage to agriculture and to other interests caused by the recent snow and frosts. We shall not be niggardly about this. We shall find whatever money is reasonably required.

The Ministry of Food estimate shows a large increase of 5c) million over last year's expenditure. This is due to the increase in the cost-of-living subsidies, on which, perhaps, I might conveniently interpolate some observations at this stage.

So far, though the pursuit of this policy of stabilisation has become more and more costly, it has remained practical. But now I have no doubt that we must pause and review it afresh—particularly since, now, the scene changes, in the light of the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 10th March, in this House, that the present index number, which has been a natural target for so much criticism, is to be revised. The present index—it is extraordinary that this should be so and while I have no doubt most hon. Members of the Committee are aware of it, I will re-state the present position—relates to prices paid by an average working class family in 1914, for a selection of articles of ordinary working-class consumption in the year 1904, nearly half a century ago. This selection of articles included flannelette—then a favoured costume material for ladies' dresses—and candles, by which, in 1904, people lit their rooms. But it did not include either rayon or electric light. We have moved forward since then. This is a fantastic basis for a definition of the cost of living in this year, 1947, and it is now intended by my right hon. Friend to bring the index a generation nearer to the present time, and to base it, as an interim measure, until things have settled down in the postwar period, on the household expenditure of the average working-class family, not in 1904, but in 1938, 34 years nearer today.

This new index will take account of a much wider range of prices than the old one did; many more articles will be included. For this reason, the new index will give considerably less prominence than the old to food items, because considerably smaller proportion of the average working class income was spent on food in 1938 than in 1904. I read in the report that has been published by the committee which has advised my right hon. Friend, that only 40 per cent. was spent on food out of an average working class family's expenditure in 1938 as against 6o per cent. in 1904. It follows that any given change in food prices, either up or down, will have a good deal less effect upon the new index than it had upon the old. It follows, also, that the policy of holding the index steady, as we have done, principally by variations in food prices, has ceased to be practical in view of the smaller relative weight of food items in the new index. The new index, covering so much wider a range of commodities, will, by reason of its changed composition, be much less subject than the old index to our present controls, which have, therefore, to be revised and looked at again.

The old policy, of using food subsidies to keep the old index stable, cannot be applied to the new, for the reasons I have given. This means we shall have to devise, in due course, a modified policy, which will no longer aim at an absolute stability, and will, I hope, cost the taxpayer less money, but will still continue, at a lower cost, to exercise a stabilising influence upon the index. In particular, I suggest to the Committee—I make no commitments on this point; it is a matter for consideration in due course—that there is much to be said for carrying further a practice which we have begun in the last year, of concentrating food subsidies— having determined what is a reasonable sum to pay on them—on a smaller number of commodities which will be of greater importance to the housewife, instead of scattering them over a wide range of articles, many of them not of first importance in a household budget. That, I think, is a policy which should be examined.

It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to bring this new index into operation in the near future. He is now holding consultations with the two sides of industry on various matters—wage arrangements, and so on. After these discussions, my right hon. Friend hopes to bring the new index into operation within the next few months. Meanwhile, we shall continue the old index. It is my purpose to keep this old index steady and stable, as we have kept it until now, until it passes out of use in a few months' time, and, thereafter, to continue to exercise a stabilising influence upon the new index along the lines which I have been indicating. There will, I imagine, be a suitable occasion on which to discuss this a little later, when we are nearer to the point of change over.

The estimated expenditure on all these cost-of-living subsidies for this year, £425 million, was based on certain assumptions—the estimate was drawn up a little while ago, and things have moved since then—which are no longer real. It was based on the assumptions that the old cost of living index would be kept in operation—the estimate was drawn up before we had the report, that it would be held stable throughout the year, and that prices would rise no further. These assumptions must now be revised, and new arrangements must be made in due course. But I shall hope, in any case, to keep the cost to the taxpayer this year within the estimate, even though the assumptions have, in fact, changed. What would suit us best—but paradise is not so easily attained in this postwar world—and what for several years I have been hoping for, would be that prices, especially of imported foods, should begin to fall, instead of going on rising, so that the cost-of-living index, whether the old or the new, could be kept stable, in a period of gradually falling prices, with a diminishing cost to the taxpayer. That is what would suit us best; but it does not look as though we could yet confidently count upon that happy state of affairs coming to pass.

I turn to the Consolidated Fund Services for this year. These I put at £556 million, £22 million less than last year. Last year, I provided million under this head for the National Land Fund. This year, the Debt Charge will require £525 million, an increase of £26 million over last year. But, of this £26 million, £8 million represents interest on borrowing to repay Local Loans Stock, which the Committee will remember we converted. This sum is offset on the revenue side of the account by a corresponding item in Miscellaneous Revenue paid into the Exchequer from the Local Loans Fund. The other Consolidated Fund Charges, apart from the Debt Charge, will cost us £31 million. So much for the expenditure this year.

I now turn to revenue for 1947–48 on the existing basis of taxation. I shall lose some revenue, of course—as a result of the snow, frost and floods of February and March. I cannot yet say how much, and it would be absurd to give a firm estimate; but there will be some losses there. That is one of the uncertainties which must be borne in mind in looking forward 12 months. I have not heard even a single plausible speech which blamed the snow, frost and floods upon His Majesty's present Government. None the less, we shall lose some revenue by reason of those events. But in view of much that has been written in the Press, the Committee may be surprised to learn that my advisers do not expect any appreciable loss of revenue this year—I emphasise "this year"—as a consequence of the three weeks' stoppage of industry over part of England, through the cutting off of electric current last February. This unhappy event raised the total of the unemployed for one week to over 2 million, the figure which used to be regarded as normal, year after year, in the deflationary 'thirties. Unemployment on this scale, even for only a short time, might have been expected to make serious inroads on the revenue. But here P.A.Y.E. came to the rescue, acting as a most helpful stabilising factor.

I must say a word in defence of P.A.Y.E.; so many people attack it, while not offering any suitable substitute. P.A.Y.E. provides a welcome cushion of purchasing power, in times of short-term unemployment. If wages are not paid as a result of unemployment, the tax that would have been payable On these wages is, of course, not collected; but over and above this, the tax already paid is partially refunded to unemployed workers, over and above any unemployment benefit to which they are entitled. Working-class purchasing power is thus kept relatively steady, and this prevents any serious fall in revenue from Customs and Excise. A man can still afford a drink, even in these conditions. The loss to the Inland Revenue, on the other hand, of Income Tax on wages, was probably about £5 million during the last two months of the last financial year, February and March. The three weeks' partial stoppage of electric power, together with the continuation of certain restrictions on fuel consumption, did not, of course, affect the yield, last year, of Income Tax and Profits Tax on business profits, because those profits had been made long before these events happened. Nor will these fuel shortages much affect the yield of these taxes this year, since, this year, the tax will be based mainly upon profits attributable to accounting periods of past years. But—and I am anxious to be quite frank with the Committee about this—there will be a loss of revenue, which cannot yet be estimated, but may be large, from Income Tax and Profits Tax in the financial year 1948–9. That is when we shall feel it. It is too early yet be give an estimate.

I turn to Customs and Excise on the existing basis of taxation this year. I count on £26o million from the Purchase Tax, £450 million from tobacco, £350 million from beer, spirits and wine, and £240 million from other Customs and Excise Duties. That makes a total of £1,300 million, £116 million above the yield last year, or roughly a 10 per cent. increase, which I think is very satisfactory.

If we take the Inland Revenue this year, on the existing basis of taxation, the yield of the Income Tax will be less by about £48 million than it would have been but for the Income Tax concessions made in my last two Budgets. The main part of the effect of these concessions has been felt already, but I must now allow for their effect in a full year, and, therefore, for a decline of the Income Tax yield, which I put at £48 million this year. On the other hand, I count upon a growth—or my advisers count, and I accept their judgment in these matters—of £42 million over last year due to a further growth of taxable incomes—we are not all broke yet—and particularly of trading profits. Therefore, balancing the £48 million loss against the £42 million gain, I assume a total yield from Income Tax this year of £1,150 million—quite a comfortable sum. From Surtax I count on an increase over last year of £4 million, making a total of £80 million; and from Death Duties an increase of £7 million, making a total of £155 million. I count on an increase of £2 million from Stamps, making a total of £40 million, and I count on a small item of £r million from miscellaneous Inland Revenue duties.

Excess Profits Tax and Profits Tax together yielded, last year, £358 million; this year, I expect only £200 million from those two duties together. The Committee will, of course, recall that the rate of Excess Profits Tax was reduced as from 1st January, 1946, to 6o per cent., and that, as from 1st January this year. this wartime duty was finally dropped. We shall get a bit more for a number of years, but it will not be much better than a trickle, from E.P.T.; but in this coming year I still expect a substantial figure, namely, £200 million from E.P.T. and Profits Tax together. Therefore, the grand total for the Inland Revenue Duties adds up to £1,626 million, a drop of £151 million, or just on 9 per cent., on last year's yield.

The Committee will, I think, be interested to know that the payment of E.P.T. refunds is now nearly completed. We spent much time last year discussing the details and the conditions of those repayments. £184 million was paid last year under this head, and I hope to pay a further £60 million this year. Allowing for a small residue of cases that will take longer to settle, we shall, this year, reach the end of this refunding operation—so beneficial, it will generally be agreed, to British industry. The Committee will remember that it is a condition of these refunds that they shall be used for the re-equipment and development of industry, and shall not he dispersed in dividends.

Now, after Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue, I turn to other revenue. I count on £50 million this year from the motor vehicle duties, the same as last year. I count on million from wireless licences, an increase of £1 million. The sale of surplus stores should yield £95 million this year, as against £156 million last year. The main work of our disposal machine has now been done, and it is, very naturally, running down; the bulk of the stores have been disposed of very efficiently. I expect £55 million, as against £59 million last year, from the trading activities of State Departments—mostly from the Raw Materials Department of the Board of Trade. The total of these items of other revenue is therefore £211 million.

So far so good, we may say, within the bounds of reasonable expectation; but I now have a further and, I think, an unexpected, revelation to make to the Committee, and to the writers in the financial Press. I feel I must apologise to them; I always try to keep my relations with them very bright and good, but I must now apologise to them for not being able to give them private notice, for the purpose of their expert prophecies, of what I might call the litter of rabbits which I am now about to produce out of my Departmental hat, or, if you will, out of Mr. Gladstone's old box.

I am advised, and I am sure the Committee will be very delighted with what I am now going to say, that I shall receive this year, over and above the Other Revenue to which I have already alluded, no less a sum than £292 million—quite a windfall—of Miscellaneous Receipts. This will help us on our way. These represent, in large part, repayments to the Treasury of advances made under various heads of Budget expenditure in past years. In achieving this remarkable total of recaptures, the officers of the Treasury, never wholly inactive—not even on the Riviera, lately—have displayed most conspicuous qualities of enterprise, endurance, and ardour in the chase. This year will be a record year for these recaptures by the Treasury. I remember that the present Leader of the Opposition, in one of his dramatic Budget speeches which it was my honour to listen to, sitting on the other side of the House, once used the phrase "We are clawing back large sums of money." I always remember that phrase—it is most apt. This year we are clawing back, from paymasters and quartermasters all over the world, no less a sum than £112 million of unspent Votes of Credit, voted in previous years. In addition, we are recovering £23 million from the U.K.C.C., which is being wound up. We are recovering £18 million from surplus Appropriations-in-Aid; and we are recovering £10,500,000 from N.A.A.F.I., not to speak of many smaller recoveries. The full total will be published, but I will not go right through the items now; we shall be very happy to furnish the Committee with the full total of these recaptures. They also include the £8 million—this is less dramatic—from interest on Local Loans to which I have already referred, a balancing item associated with the repayment of Local Loans stock.

The £292 million of Miscellaneous Receipts, added to the million of Other Revenue which I mentioned just now, gives us a total of £503 million for revenue other than Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue. I, therefore, estimate the total revenue for 1947–48, on the existing basis of taxation, at £3,429 million as against an expenditure of £3,181 million. This gives me a prospective surplus of £248 million. The Committee will, I think, be surprised and gratified at this result, which is so much better than even the most wishful of our friends would have expected. Last year, I prophesied that we should find ourselves, this year, "within striking distance" of a balanced Budget. Those words of mine now seem, in retrospect, to be a characteristically cautious understatement. "Within striking distance," I said, Major Milner. We have already struck. We have already taken this objective of a balanced Budget, and we are now advancing into open country, well beyond it. This year, we shall not only balance the Budget; we shall have a good balance in hand. I trust this surplus will act as smelling salts under the noses of those who, both in this country and outside it, have lately been showing signs of despondency, if not of fainting fits, at the thought of our financial future. We have, and I make no concealment of this, a very tough external problem to face, of which I shall speak later; but as far as our domestic affairs are concerned, this Budget surplus, of close on £250 million, is a clear sign of our internal financial strength, which all the world should note.

Putting it another way, I pointed out, 12 months ago, that in 1944–45, the last full year of war, for every pound of Budget expenditure we paid 10s. 8d. from revenue, and thought that was a good show. In 1945–46 for every pound of expenditure we paid 12s. from revenue. In 1946–47, the last year, which has just closed, a fortnight ago, we paid 17s. id. from revenue. This year, on the existing basis of taxation, we shall collect no less than 21s. 7d. of revenue for every pound of Budget expenditure. That, I think, is not too had.

I must, however, at once warn the Committee that this prospective surplus cannot be regarded as available for wholesale tax reduction this year, and this for two reasons. In the first place, many of the receipts are non-recurrent; many of them will come in once for all. It is not yet clear whether, on the existing basis of taxation, we should have another surplus next year. We cannot yet see sufficiently clearly the pattern of next year's financial yield. This year the surplus is real; it is as real as last year's deficit, but it might, like some of the elements which have gone to create it, be non-recurrent

There are many uncertain factors on both sides of next year's Budget. I haw already referred to a possible heavy loss of Income Tax next year. There will be much less E.P.T. revenue next year. Certainly we cannot hope next year to come anywhere near this year's high record for Miscellaneous Receipts. Much depends upon next year's expenditure. There are many terminal elements on the expenditure side, as well as on the revenue side, of the national balance sheet. What further savings shall we be able to make upon defence, upon oversea expenditure generally—partly military, partly humanitarian—such as feeding the fallen foe, which must end some time? What further savings can we make, perhaps, on the general total of subsidies? We do not know, and no one can tell yet. Furthermore, next year we shall certainly have a further increase in the expenditure on the Social Services. In particular, there will be an increase in the national expenditure on health next year, following on the transfer of the hospitals from local to national ownership.

Next year, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will have to rearrange—we are pledged to this—the relationship of national to local finance, at a cost to the Treasury perhaps of a little money, because local authorities can be exigent and greedy sometimes. In any case, we are all agreed that we need to have a new block grant, better arranged and costing less to the Treasury, and, so far as its distribution among local authorities is concerned, acting to a greater extent than heretofore as a rate equaliser, giving more to the poorer authorities, and much less, in many cases nothing at all, to the richer, having regard to the rating relief which they will gain from the transfer of hospitals. That is one reason why we cannot regard this surplus as being available for wholesale tax reduction.

There is a second reason. This is a year when we ought, in any case, to have a Budget surplus. I have already stated several times, inside this House and outside that the aim of His Majesty's Government is not, as used to be thought the right rule, to balance the Budget each year, regardless of circumstances. Not at all. Our purpose should be to balance the Budget over a series of years. Each year we should consider, in the light of the financial and economic situation, the movement of prices, the level of employment, the relative dangers of inflation or deflation, whether, in that particular year, there should be a Budget surplus or a Budget deficit. I submit to the Committee that there can be no doubt that, on this test, this is a good year for a good surplus. There is a high level of employment. Prices are still rising—faster than we like. Unemployment, such unemployment as there is today, is due not, as in the old days, to a general shortage of purchasing power, but to shortages of particular things of factories in the development areas, of coal, of electric power, of spun yarn, whether cotton or wool, or of particular kinds of skilled labour.

Today there is plenty of purchasing power. That has been our aim. We have sought to lubricate the economic system with a sufficiency of purchasing power, much more evenly spread than before the war. That has been our aim, and we have achieved it. Therefore, deflation is no longer the immediate danger today. The immediate danger is of an inflation going beyond bounds, and breaking through the various controls that we have set up. So far, our price controls, our financial and physical controls, our production and our savings have held the inflation reasonably well in check. There has been inflationary pressure, as some of the writers in the Press say; but there has been no inflationary break-through the dams. Indeed, there is much more inflation in many other countries than there is here. Let that not be forgotten. We have managed our affairs with relative wisdom and competence, compared with some other parts of the world.

That is the position now. But another year, particularly if a trade depression started somewhere else in the world outside this island, deflation rather than inflation might be our pressing danger. In that case, if I were still Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should not hesitate to ask Parliament and the country to approve a Budget deficit, if need be, a large one, in order to redress that deflationary lack of balance. That is not the position now. If we are to balance the Budget over a series of years, we must earn the right to a Budget deficit in another year by recording a Budget surplus this year. Therefore, though I shall later propose to the Committee certain changes in taxation, some up, some down, the net effect must be to fortify rather than to weaken the revenue, both for this year and even more for the future years to which we must look forward. The Committee will recall that in my first two Budgets, within six months of each other, I made net reductions of taxation, which the Committee approved, of more than £500 million a year. The possibility of any further net reduction must now wait till next year.

Next after the Budget surplus, in the line of our defences against inflation, I put National Savings. This great Savings Movement of ours, solid, undramatic, typically British, has been a tremendous source of material and moral strength to this country for more than 30 years, under all Governments, in war and in peace, in all political situations. The National Savings Movement has achieved, under an all-party leadership—my right hon. Friend opposite and I spoke together, only last year, in the Albert Hall in support of it—a truly national character. The critics and the carpers have been few; here and there a stray political dingo has barked in the dusk; but the national caravan has moved on. Last year, the National Savings Movement—

I am also anxious to make big inroads this year into the outstanding claims for war damage. Many of the victims of the German bombs have been waiting a long time for their money. And so, at the request of my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I am finding £60 million this year for war damage payments under the Business and Chattels Scheme. Further, following the Debate the other day, the House approved the payment, as soon as may be—I hope it will be substantially all within this year, administrative provisions permitting—of the war damage value payments. In addition, as the work is done, the war damage Cost of Works payments will, of course, continue to be met. The Value payments now stand at about £100 million, and they will cost us nearly £150 million when increased by the percentage additions to which the House agreed when this matter was discussed a few weeks ago. To this sum must be added a further £20 million interest on these Value payments as from the date of damage to the date of payment. The Cost of Works payments last year amounted to £94 million. This year they will run at about the same level, say, £100 million. Therefore, the Value payments and the Cost of Works payments as a whole, taken together, will cost some £270 million this financial year.

I appeal to all those who receive lump sums, whether for damage to business and chattels or as value payments, to save as much as they can during these next years. This will help savings and hinder inflation, and there will be better opportunities later on than now for spending much of this money to good purpose. I must apologise to the Committee if I have been going into too much detail, but I thought it was my duty to deploy the position fully.

I would now like to say a word or two about the programme of Government borrowing for 1947–48 and to emphasise in the first place, that this year's Budget surplus, together with the supporting weight of the National Savings that have been promised, will much more than cover—and this is important—that part of what is called by some of the experts "expenditure below the line," which does not directly create new capital assets. Therefore, thoughtful and instructed persons should be reassured to know that all further internal Government borrowing this year will be either for replacement of maturing debt, which is always occurring, of course, or for definitely new capital development. None of it will be merely to bridge a gap between current income and expenditure. That phase is finished.

Under the heading of new capital development we expect to borrow some £50 million for the capital requirements of the National Coal Board. All our future depends upon coal, and nothing must be allowed to stand in front of the re-equipment of the now publicly owned mining industry. The other public boards, the Air Transport Corporations, the Electricity Authority and the Transport Commission, when set up, will finance their development by the issue of stock bearing their own name, not part of the National Debt but under Treasury guarantee. On the other hand, the Treasury will advance to the local authorities this year from the Local Loans Fund at least £200 million for housing and for other capital schemes. We shall also borrow a further £90 million for temporary houses, and other charges of a capital character, for which the Ministry of Works are primarily responsible, which are not financed through the Local Loans Fund.

There will also be large financial operations, which consist, when stripped down to their essentials, only of the exchange of one piece of paper for another, in connection with compensation to private shareholders in the industries and services which are now being taken into public ownership—coal, electricity, transport and cable and wireless. These are very large financial transactions in the total, but they do not involve either new borrowing in the market or any addition to the net capital liabilities of the nation which is becoming possessed, as the result of our Socialist measures, of an impressive range of properties which were previously under private ownership. These are assets which, whatever may be thought about the policy—I am not now speaking of policy—can properly be set off against the debt created.

Further, we must deal with such existing debt as may mature this year. As regards small savings, maturing Certificates should be more than covered by new purchases. The first issue of the 3 per cent. Defence Bonds began to mature in November, 1946, and, by the end of this month, £32 million of these will have been paid off and £27 million converted into the 2½ per cent. series, with a saving of interest. A further £160 million will mature this year. But—and this is important to me as Chancellor of the Exchequer—apart from the maturity of these Defence Bonds and the recurrent maturities of the Floating Debt from week to week, we have a good clear run, with no large maturity to be met until 1st March, 1948, when £300 million of 3 per cent. Conversion Loan 1948–53 become redeemable. Now, therefore, is a favourable opportunity for consolidating the great advance which we have made in the last 18 months in reducing the rates of interest on Government borrowing. I have undertaken to speak of this in a little detail, and I would like to pursue the topic for a few moments.

If I may briefly pass in review the successive stages in the campaign which His Majesty's Government have waged, and of which I have been the instrument, since we took office, for cheaper money and lower rates of interest, the following features stand out. In my first Budget speech, in October, 1945, I announced a cut in short-term interest rates, a half of one per cent. in the case of Treasury Bills—from about one per cent. to about a half of one per cent.—and, in the case of Treasury Deposit Receipts, from one and one-eighth per cent. to five-eighths per cent. These rates have not be changed since that time. Shortly after this, in November, 1945, I gave notice of the repayment of £206 million of the 2½ per cent. Conversion Loan 1944–49, and £444 million of 2½ per cent. National War Bonds 1945–47. No less than £176 million of the former and £284 million of the latter were exchanged into 1¾ per cent. Exchequer Bonds, 195o, with a saving of interest. The balance of these loans was paid off, on the due dates, the Conversion Loan on 1st April, 1946, and the National War Bonds on 1st July of the same year.

I took the next step in the cheap money campaign last May, when I replaced the current issue of 3 per cent. Defence Bonds by a new issue of Defence Bonds at 2½ per cent., raising the maximum holding from £2,000 to £2,500. £112 million of these new 2½ per cent. Bonds had been taken up by 31st March last. Last May, I also reopened the tap, and kept it open till July, with an issue of 2½ per cent. Savings Bonds 1964–67. £419 million were subscribed in cash—a very good total—and £334 million were issued in conversion of maturing 2½ per cent. National War Bonds 1946–48. The importance of this operation was that it established the Government's credit at 2½ per cent. on a long-term security with a final redemption date.

In September, I gave notice of a new Savings Certificate to replace the old at the beginning of this month, April. It bore a lower rate of interest, more in line with the higher level which national credit had then reached. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question."] It is not a question, it is a fact. In October last, I announced the redemption of the 3 per cent. Local Loans Stock, which was undated, and the issue, at par, of 2½ per cent. Treasury Stock, 1975, or after. This tap was closed on 14th January, 1947, by which time £305 million had been taken up by holders of Local Loans in exchange for their maturing stock, and £117 million had been issued for cash. I said then, and I repeat now, that for the first time in the long history of our National Debt a British Government commanded such credit as enabled it to raise money at par on an irredeemable 2½ per cent. security. Whatever happens in the future, that is a significant historical event, and I think that should have been a proud day for patriots.

In the past three months, since this operation concluded, there have been some fluctuations in the national credit. The fuel shortage, the freeze, the snow, the gales, the floods, uncertain news from all over the world, uncertainties about the Budget and organised gloom in certain sections of the Press, all these factors combined to cause a noticeable fall in gilt-edged prices, a noticeable but, I am glad to say, a short-lived fall. There followed a substantial recovery, then a slight relapse, followed, in the last few days; by a good rally up to Budget eve. Today I read that, on the whole, the Stock Exchange is not unduly apprehensive about what I may say before I sit down. During these fluctuations, which are very natural, there was never any heavy selling. It is important that this should be understood. There was not a vast volume of transactions. There was never any heavy selling, but there was, it seems, a momentary loss of nerve in the gilt-edged market and particularly among the jobbers, who were unwilling to take more stock on their books until they knew what was going to happen next. I hope that all these gentlemen will feel stronger tomorrow.

I have heard some criticism from time to time of my cheap money policy, in defence of which therefore, I now ask leave to say a few words. The steady and progressive reduction in the rates of Government borrowing over the last 18 months has brought great and solid benefit, not to one section only, but to the nation as a whole. I am convinced of that. Let me give reasons for that opinion. First and foremost comes the relief to the taxpayer, on whom falls the burden of servicing the National Debt, now grown to gigantic proportions as a consequence of two great wars. Since His Majesty's present Government took office we have issued more than £1,300 million of 2½ per cent. long dated and irredeemable securities—some long-dated and some irredeemable. Before our cheap money drive began, these issues would have had to be raised at 3 per cent. or higher. If we assume only 3 per cent. the long-term interest burden on the taxpayer has been lightened by at least £6,500,000 a year in respect of these long-term issues. In addition, the Floating Debt now carries interest at only one half of I per cent. If this Debt had had to be raised on the terms current before my first Budget, the taxpayer would have had to pay £31 million a year more in interest on the Floating Debt alone. Adding these two figures together, it is clear that, on direct Government borrowing alone, the taxpayer has been saved nearly £40 million a year since October, 1945.

So much for the central Government. But cheap money benefits not only the central Government. It benefits the local authorities; it benefits the great public boards; it benefits private industry at large; and indeed it benefits other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Let me take the last point first. The Government of Australia—who are very good friends of ours; none better in the world—in June, 1946, converted £16 million of 3 per cent. stock into a new issue carrying interest at 2i per cent. Last January they converted to a 2½ per cent. basis another £18 million of stock—of which million was 4 per cent. and million 3½ per cent. These operations were carried out by the Australian Government in their full sovereignty, and in the light of the advice of their financial advisers in the City of London. But they were made possible by the financial policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. We can claim that that policy has saved His Majesty's Government in Australia, on these two operations, more than £300,000 a year in interest charges. That is a striking example of Mutual Aid in the Commonwealth, and, of how one British Labour Government can help another.

Let us turn to the local authorities. The capital needs of the local authorities are met in two ways. They borrow either on the credit of the State through the Local Loans Fund, or on their own credit in the stock market or by mortgage. Since the present Government took office, the amount drawn by local authorities from the Local Loans Fund is £117 million. Of this, £100 million has been drawn since June, 1946, when, on my instructions, the rate of interest was reduced from 3½ to 2½ per cent., a lower level than it had ever stood at before.

Therefore, on this £100 million drawn since that time, the local authorities enjoy an annual saving of over £500,000 a year. To this must be added the further saving to the ratepayers of more than £1,000,000 a year if this year's drawings on the Fund run as I estimate. Further, on their own credit the local authorities have converted £29 million of stocks in the market since our cheap money drive began, to rates of 2¾ per cent. in the early stages, improving later to 2½ per cent. The saving so far on these conversions has been £600,000 a year. The local authorities have been helped to make these welcome savings for their ratepayers because they have had behind them the strong arm of the National Debt Office, which has underwritten all these conversions, without charging any commission, but has made a useful profit for the taxpayer by well-timed unloading of stocks which some of the previous holders were too slow-witted to take the offer to convert. These add up to a considerable total. The interest savings to private industry have also been large—let this not be omitted—both on the conversion of debentures and on new issues. Indeed, many industrialists admit that cheap money has enabled them to put their house in order, by reducing the interest rate on their prior charges.

These are not only substantial gains; they are enduring gains. They are gains which stand high out of reach of the tides that ebb and flow from week to week on the Stock Exchange. Apart from the Floating Debt, all these are long-term issues, and the lower rates of interest will, therefore, apply throughout the whole long lifetime of these loans, no matter what may happen between now and their terminal dates. Finally, I repeat these are gains which benefit the whole community, section by section, right throughout the national life. But I

would add that these are only a beginning. The volume of borrowing which has taken place so far, during the period of the cheap money drive, is small compared with that which we have in prospect during the next few years. It is in the years ahead that the nation will derive still more substantial and lasting benefits from a resolute adherence to the cheap money policy. It is our intention resolutely to adhere to it. So long as the National Debt endures—and that may be for a long time yet—the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be on the side of the borrowers of money as against the money lenders, on the side of the active producer as against the passive rentier.

There has been a long Debate about cheap money. The late Lord Keynes, to whom I personally, and the country as a whole, owe a great debt for his public work, was very definitely in favour of cheap money. Now that he is dead, I can say that his advice to me was to persevere with it. I have done so. He was most decidedly on one side in this controversy, though some of the smaller pundits who have survived him take another view. Lord Keynes wrote a famous Tract on Monetary Reform, in which he said:

"The active and working elements in no community, ancient or modern, will consent to hand over to the rentier or bond holder class more than a certain proportion of the fruits of their work. When the piled up debt demands more than a tolerable proportion, relief has usually been sought"

either in straight-out Repudiation of the Debt or in devaluation of the Currency. I believe that to be an accurate summary of history, politics apart. But there is another way of partial relief from these tremendous debt burdens, and that is by the pursuit of cheap money and low interest rates. If rates of interest now were what they were at the end of the first World War, where should we be? What would be the annual cost of the National Debt? What would the Income Tax be? What would the other taxes be? I am sure we are pursuing the national interest in seeking gradually to condition public opinion to the idea of 2½ per cent. as the maximum rate of interest on long-term loans to the British Government, and I expect to have public opinion increasingly behind me when it is realised that on the continuance of this maximum rate of 2i per cent. long-term—and lower rates for shorter terms—depends all hope of serious tax relief in the future. There is no other way in which the circle can be squared and the Budget balanced.

There has been much talk—not so much in this House but in some of the columns of the financial Press—of deflation as a sovereign remedy, for the ills from which it is thought we are suffering. I have a very poor intellectual opinion of those who take that view. They seem to me to be baleful Bourbons, who have learned nothing and forgotten nothing from the financial follies and economic crimes, as they seem to us now, committed between the wars. Let us be clear. If we were to follow through this policy of deflation, preached by some who sit in office chairs in the city of London, we would bring back dear money; we-would bring back depressed trade; we would bring back mass unemployment; and we would bring back a clamour for cuts in wages and social services and for indiscriminate short-sighted economy campaigns of every sort. In my view, this must be resisted. It is intellectually wrong and morally reprehensible. This faction of whom I speak would enthrone the usurer over all, trample the common man in the dust, and consolidate catastrophe in our national life.

So far I have assumed that these opinions are not held in this House. I have assumed that these are the more irresponsible babblings of persons not of a representative quality. But if it should so be that in this House these views are put forward, we will most gladly Debate them and join issue, quite confident that the national interest is on our side. Therefore, if these be any deflationists in this House, we say to them, "If that be your view, come out and let us have Debate and political battle in the open." The division is not entirely according to political opinions. I am greatly heartened by a remarkable letter which I have received from a very distinguished historian, who will be well known in all parts of the House, Mr. Arthur Bryant. He wrote to me—and I quote his words—

"an historian who—his Tory background notwithstanding—is deeply grateful to you for your stand against the attempt to force this country into the same deflationary course that proved so fatal after both the last war and the Napoleonic wars."

He is an expert historian, quoting from the records. He says:

"Working as I am on the tragic aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, I have reached the conclusion that. had the Government at that time corrected deflation when deflation set in, most of the social disasters from whose consequences we are still suffering could have been avoided."

He ends by saying:

"I feel this strongly, and the horror of see mg thinking men, despite the appalling lessons of the last 3o years, resorting to the same fundamental fallacy, has impelled me to write to you in gratitude."

[ Interruption.]—He has a Tory background and I think it is only reasonable that I should quote that passage. I too am very grateful to Mr. Arthur Bryant—many of whose writings I have read with great appreciation, for he is a great master of English and of his subjects—for this very powerful and expert testimony on the side of truth.

Let us look at the thing directly. Is there really a British citizen who is either too avaricious or too frightened of the future to lend money to his country at 2½ per cent. on long-term? It is more attractive on long-term, a term which would exceed the life of this Government, and the next, and the Government after that. If there be any such persons in this House—I cannot believe it, but if there be—I hope they will stand up in the course of our Debates and confess frankly their lack of faith in the future of our native land and theirs.

I turn for a moment or two to the question of our overseas deficit. I have promised to speak of this most tough, external problem, and I will speak of it quite frankly, and seek to deploy the facts before the House without concealment. Our internal finance presents many difficult problems, but they are all easy, relatively speaking, compared to the external problem of our balance of payments on overseas trading account. That is much the biggest headache which must beset any thoughtful person, no matter what his politics or what his economic circumstances may be. No other country in he world, without exception, faces so tough an external problem as we do. It is the result—I have remarked on this before, and I repeat—it is the strange and ironical result of our tremendous effort over six long years of war, an effort in which we in this little island, who were in it from the start, distorted the whole of our economy, without any thought either of the cost or of the consequences, to save many others who, without us, would never have been delivered from defeat and from a slavery worse than death—

I have already given reasons why the prospective surplus of £248 million on the existing basis of taxation, cannot be regarded as large enough. The changes in taxation which I now propose have been framed accordingly. I will begin with a series of proposed reductions, leaving increases until later.

I propose to repeal the Excise Duty on artificial silk as from the 1st May next. This, I have always thought, was a stupid and inappropriate tax in modern conditions. It dates back to a time—I remember Debates in the 'twenties about it—when artificial silk was something of an exotic luxury, and had not then become a normal part of the garments of so many of our fellow citizens. Nowadays the tax places an unfair burden on one of the liveliest and most hopeful of our industries, a particularly hopeful industry for export. And here I reach what I said just now This industry is widely dispersed over the country, it does not suffer from undue localisation. It is also setting about the construction of new factories, and new projects of factories, many of them set in the development areas.

Therefore, I propose to repeal the Excise Duty. There is a complicated system of Customs Duties on imported artificial silk products which gives some advantage to home-produced material. I propose to adjust those Customs Duties, corresponding to the repeal of the Excise Duty, but leaving the advantage to the home produced material undiminished. I shall withdraw the allowance, which was granted last year in the Finance Bill, but is no longer necessary, on duty-paid artificial silk used in the manufacture of tyres. I estimate the cost of these changes in Customs and Excise on artificial silk, which the Board of Trade will take into account in considering future rayon prices, at £2,250,000 in a full year, and about £2 million this year.

Next I take heavy hydrocarbon oils. Last August I announced that, to encourage the conversion of coal-burning plant to oil-burning plant, I proposed to repeal, in this year's Finance Bill, the duty of id. a gallon on fuel oil and gas oil and that pending the repeal, a subsidy of id. a gallon would be paid to consumers of such oils whether imported or home-produced. I shall carry out that undertaking now. I estimate the loss of revenue to be about £4,250,000 in a full year, and £4 million this year. I shall continue for the present, and with no immediate intention of extinguishing it, the existing subsidy on home-produced fuel and gas oils, and creosote pitch mixture, which will cost about £250,000 a year. It is not a joyful thing, but it is a national necessity, to import more oil to make good the shortage in our own supplies of coal. This ought not to be, and let us hope that when new habits have taken root, it will not be any more. But for the time being, it is necessary to do this. These imports are a further burden on our balance of payments, and they can only be justified—as they must be justified—if they increase, to an even greater extent, our own production of other goods for export.

I turn to the Purchase Tax, In both my previous Budgets, I have lightened the burden of the Purchase Tax. But I cannot go much further along this road today. The Purchase Tax falls only on goods sold in the home market; it does not fall on exports. Therefore, any reductions or remissions in the Purchase Tax discourage exports proportionately, and we cannot afford such discouragement just now. There are many things which we would like to keep for ourselves, but which we must send abroad, to pay for our own food, raw cotton and the like. But, I can do just a little. I have recently agreed with the President of the Board of Trade that silk stockings—I am told they are very good silk stockings—should be added to the very wide range of tax-free utility clothing. This will not require new legislation and will not, therefore, be included in the Budget Resolutions. I am told that these stockings will be in the shops before very long, and that they will give every satisfaction. I propose to reduce the Purchase Tax of 33⅓ per cent. to the minimum rate of 16⅔ per cent. on linoleum, and similar floor coverings which are much needed just now. This reduction should help the housewife, and all holders of priority dockets issued by the Board of Trade.

I should like to do something more this year for the young and active members of the community, and those not yet too old to take vigorous exercise I propose, therefore, to reduce the tax from 33⅓ per cent. to 16? per cent. on sports requisites for football, cricket, hockey, boxing and rowing. I was much impressed by the keenness with which Members pressed the case for reduction for sports gear last year. I regret that I cannot go further than the list I have mentioned today, because I must maintain the present rate of tax on many sports articles which are very good export lines. This applies particularly to golf, and tennis. I am told that many sports requisites are very good export lines indeed, and we must not stand in the way of the export trade. I hope and believe that the reductions I have proposed will be welcomed by those who play these games, and just as my last Budget contained a reduction of Entertainments Duty for the benefit of British sport, I am happy that this year's Budget should contain a second concession on behalf of the young and active.

Finally, the Budget Resolutions will provide for a number of small miscellaneous reductions in Purchase Tax. Dental sticks, razor strops and sharpeners will be reduced from 100 per cent. to 33⅓ hot water bottles—[ Laughter]—we want to look after the old as well—and certain other articles of domestic chinaware, will be reduced from 33⅓ per cent. to 16⅔ per cent.; and water filters, now taxed at 33⅓ per cent., will be completely exempt. I am also making an order to exempt from Purchase Tax certain special kinds of heavy cloth used in mechanical plant.

Full particulars of these changes, including precise definitions of the articles concerned, of which I have only mentioned some, will be found in the White Paper. The new rates provided for in the Budget Resolutions will apply to goods delivered by registered manufacturers and wholesalers to retailers from tomorrow, and as soon as retailers' existing stocks have been cleared, the price of new supplies should reflect the tax reductions. The exemption of utility silk stockings has been taken into account in my calculation of the yield of Purchase Tax on the existing basis. It will cost £1,250,000 in a full year, and £1 million this year. The cost of the other Purchase Tax concessions is £2,500,000 in a full year, and £2 million this year. Therefore, summing up on Customs and Excise as a whole, I propose tax reductions to cost £9 million in a full year, and £8 million this year.

I turn to the Income Tax, and I am sure that I shall interpret the decided preference of the vast majority of taxpayers in selecting this as the principal field for such modest reliefs—and they must be modest—as I can give this year. Most people dislike the Income Tax more than any other tax they pay. Such is the evidence we everywhere meet. First, let me remind the Committee of a relief which, though I introduced it last year, only takes effect for the first time this year—namely the allowance as deductions for Income Tax of the National Insurance contributions. When old age pensions were increased last October, insurance contributions were increased as well. This year, therefore, the tax free allowance for these increased contributions will be £5 a year, as compared with only £t last year. And next year, when the full contributions become payable, this tax-free allowance will rise to £12 a year. The effect of this is just the same as that of an increase in the personal allowances for Income Tax.

I have considered carefully which, among the various alternative forms of Income Tax relief, should be my first choice. I have decided in favour of an increase in the earned income relief, which I increased last year from one-tenth to one-eighth, maintaining the maximum at £150. I now propose further to increase it from one-eighth to one-sixth, lifting the maximum from £150 to £250, and thus, bringing this relief back to where it stood in 1940, before the introduction of the postwar credit arrangements. This will give every worker an additional incentive. I estimate the cost of this relief at £62 million in a full year, and £55 million this year.

In the second place, I propose to increase the child allowance from £50 to £6o a year, and thus restore this allowance to the pre-war figure, not merely the 1940 figure. This will cost £15 million in a full year, and £13 million this year. These last two increases together, will relieve 750,000 people who now pay Income Tax, from all payment in the future; and will, of course, noticeably reduce the tax paid by millions of others.

I have another Income Tax relief to offer, which, I hope, the Committee will think well to accept. This is in regard to the Dependent Relative Allowance, on which I have had a lot of correspondence, and on which I know there is considerable feeling of possible injustice. This allowance depends on the income of the relative. It is an allowance of £50 a year—that is the maximum—and, according to the income of the relative, the allowance tapers off. At present, if the income is less than £30 a year, the allowance is £50, and it gradually tapers off, and ceases altogether when the relative's income exceeds £80 a year. I propose that, in future, if the relative's only income is an old age pension, the maximum allowance of £50 shall still be given. If the relative has other income, giving more than £70 altogether, the allowance will taper off as before, but will not disappear until the income of the dependent relative is over £120 a year. This change is in recognition of the increase in the old age pension last year. It will cost £10 million in a full year, and £8 million this year and I am glad to, think that it will benefit one million taxpayers, with dependent relatives.

The increases in the earned income relief and in the allowances for children and dependent relatives will mean a recasting of the P.A.Y.E. tax tables, and a recoding of the taxpayers affected. People are always asking me to set up Commissions and Committees to inquire into P.A.Y.E., but I much prefer to do the job myself. We have made continuous improvements in the administration of this scheme. To recast tax tables of the old type for P.A.Y.E. used to take five or six months, but as the Committee will know, the new Single Table as it is called, which has been in use since the beginning of this year, means a great saving in every respect—a saving in paper, in printing labour and in time. This new Table can now be recalculated, printed and distributed within 10 weeks from Budget day. I hope, therefore, that the re-coding, in accordance with the changes I have indicated, will be finished, and the new tables be in the hands of all employers in time to give effect to the changes which I have just proposed, in the pay packet for the week beginning 7th July.

The relief then given will date from 6th April, the beginning of the current income tax year, and there will, therefore, be not only a smaller deduction of the tax, week by week, from the second week of July onwards, but also a repayment, in the week beginning 7th July, of the tax deducted during the previous three months in excess of the new rate. It will be another of those wonderful weeks, like the first week of last October, which many people still remember, when "P.A.Y.E." becomes "re-P.A.Y.E.", and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets smiling faces everywhere.

I next turn to the Income Tax Post-War Credits. Last year, we repaid the first three years, out of a total of five years, of these Credits to old people, men over the age of 65, and women over the age of 60. I thought that this would cost about £26 million. We have, in fact, paid out more than twice as much, just £58 million, to no less than 1,750,000 old people. We had, of course, no reliable information last year to show the distribution of the Post-War Credits between the different age groups. There is no age evidence upon the Post-War Credit. It is evident that the old people, and we were very glad that it was so, had accumulated more than twice as much in Post-War Credits as we had supposed. This year, I propose to go a step further, and to complete the payments to the old people. I propose to arrange to pay the last two years of their Credits, and, in the light of last year's experience, that should cost another £70 million. There is more credit in the fourth and fifth years than in the first three.

Actually, repayment cannot start until the autumn, but it will, I hope, be finished before Christmas. Any man reaching the age of 65, and any woman reaching the age of 6o, will thenceforward be able to claim, in one single payment, all his, or her, Post-War Credits for the five years. I cannot go further this year, and I hope the Committee will not press me to do so, in the repayment of Post-War Credits These are a great reserve of' purchasing power, which we must only release slowly, while inflationary pressure continues. If deflation were to threaten, this reserve might be one of the first to be called up to counter it. Last year, the old people, when they drew their Post-War Credits, reinvested a considerable proportion in the Post Office Savings Bank—and in other forms of savings. I appeal to them, as I appeal to other citizens, to do the same this year and put the money by, so far as their personal circumstances permit.

I have two further quite small reliefs to announce. In order to assist Approved Amalgamations in Cotton Spinning, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade attaches great importance, I propose to reduce to half the standard rate the Income Tax charged when, as a result of such amalgamations, machinery or plant is sold for more than its written-down value. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes that these amalgamations will be substantially complete in three years, and I estimate the cost of this concession over this period to be £2,500,000. None of it will accrue this year. It will, I hope, help to get the cotton industry on its feet.

Finally, in this section, I have an announcement to make in respect of Probate Fees, following up the exemption last year of small estates from Estate Duty. Probate fees are prescribed not by legislation, but by Order of the Supreme Court. Following discussions which the Lord Chancellor has had with His Majesty's Judges, I am glad to have been able to agree to a new scale of Probate fees as from 1st May. The minimum grant fee of 15s., now applying to estates up to £200, will, in future, apply to all estates up to £2,000. There will also be some reduction in the fee on estates up to £6,000. The new scale is to be calculated on the net value of the estate, including realty, and there will be some adjustment of the scale for estates above £6,000. The charge for services in the Personal Application Department on estates up to £2,000, and the jurisdiction of the Customs and Excise officers, are unaffected by this arrangement. It is not a big matter, but I am glad to think that the new scale of fees will mean a small saving in legal expenses to poor people, and the total loss of revenue from the new arrangement is only about £20,000 a year.

I have come to the end of tax reductions. The total cost of those I have proposed will be £96 million in a full year, and £84 million this year. The Income Tax reliefs will cost £87 million in a full year, and £76 million this year. This does not include the cost of the repayment to old people of their postwar credits, which, being repayment of credits, will, as before, be borrowed.

I turn to increases in taxation. My task now is to recover all, and more than all, the revenue I have lost. I have carefully studied, as I promised last year I would, the possibility of a tax on betting. At first sight this is an attractive proposition, though it would unite against it strong and varied resistance ranging from bookmakers to bishops. But I would advise the Committee to face even this powerful combination if it seemed likely that I could get substantial revenue from this new tax. But I am convinced that I could not. It would, indeed, be possible, and not very difficult, to tax the "totes," both horse and dog, and the football pools. But we stand, and most of all the Labour Party stands, for justice; and to tax "totes" and pools alone, and let the bookmakers go free, would be wrong, it would be unjust, it would be repudiated by all right-thinking men and women. On the other hand, to tax all forms of betting would present the most formidable administrative difficulties. In 1929, when the present Leader of the Opposition repealed the Betting Duty, which had been imposed in 1926, he told us that:

"In practice the duty has failed. The volatile and elusive character of the betting population, and the precarious conditions in which they disport themselves, have proved incapable of bearing the weight even of the repeatedly reduced burdens which we have tried to place upon them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1929; Vol. 227, C. 49.]

These gentlemen have become no less volatile, elusive and precarious today. I have no hope that where the right hon. Gentleman failed, I should succeed. In order to cope with the very serious difficulties of collecting a tax on bets placed with bookmakers I should need to divert a number of trained Excise Officers from

the collection of other existing taxes, and so should lose revenue. I am against adding to the Civil Service what are sometimes called "hordes of officials," even in the high mission of tax collectors. It is a defect of every new tax that it requires new officials to collect it. Therefore, I have regretfully decided to reject a tax on betting, and, in the best conservative spirit, to look for my increase of revenue this year from well-tried, existing taxes, to which we have become accustomed.

I turn to motor taxation. In my first Budget, adopting a provisional decision of my predecessor, and following, according to the best evidence then available, the wishes of the great majority of the motor manufacturers, I changed the basis of taxation of private cars, by substituting, for the cylinder bore, the cubic capacity of the cylinder. I made it clear that the change must be so arranged that I lost no revenue, though I asked for no more than I was then getting. This new tax came into effect for new cars less than four months ago, but many of the manufacturers, to whom some of the epithets applied to the betting population could be applied, now seem to have changed their minds once more. Many of them—although even now they are not unanimous; they never are—urge me to base the tax not on the cylinder bore at all, but on a combination of a flat rate licence fee and an increased petrol tax. That is a debatable and discussable proposition. But they also ask for a reduction in the total weight of taxation. That, for me, is not a discussable matter. I can hold out no hope of a reduction in the total weight of taxation for the present.

Whatever form motor taxation may take, the present revenue must at least be maintained, for the time being. As to the basis of the tax, I am very anxious to do all I can to help the motor industry, and most of all to help their exports to reach the highest possible figure. There are serious difficulties—I have looked at this question several times—in the way of adopting these latest proposals, which I cannot enlarge upon today. I make no commitment at all one way or the other, except to say that I am prepared to examine the whole question, in consultation with competent people who know the problem, between now and the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, subject to losing no revenue.

I turn to Death Duties. Last year I made some changes in the Estate Duty which brings in more than 90 per cent. of the total Death Duty revenue. By raising the exemption limit from £10o to £2,000 I exempted last year three quarters of the estates annually liable, and by regrading the duty on the other quarter I brought in £22 million more revenue in a full year. I have already referred to the adjustment of the Probate Fees to be made this year. To follow up this lightening of the burden on small estates, I now propose to make an excursion, with the same ideas in mind as I had last year, among what I may call the minor Death Duties. I propose to increase the rate of the Legacy and Succession Duties, while increasing the exemptions and reliefs for small inheritances. The Legacy and Succession Duties, fall, not, as the Estate Duty does on the total property passing at death, but on the portions of such property inherited by particular persons or by charities. To use legal jargon, for which I apologise, personalty pays Legacy Duty, realty pays Succession Duty, and both duties are based on consanguinity, which means the relationship of the deceased person to the beneficiary. The rate of duty now is one per cent. for widows and children; five per cent. for brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces; and 10 per cent. in other cases.

I propose to double all those rates, making them two, 10 and 20 per cent. respectively, but, at the same time, to give the following reliefs. Now when the total estate is less than £1,000, no Legacy or Succession Duty is charged on its distribution. I propose to raise this figure to 2,000, the same figure as the new exemption limit for Estate Duty which I introduced last year. At present, in the second place, if the total estate is less than £15,000 no Legacy or Succession Duty is payable on bequests to widows and children. That will remain unchanged. Thirdly, at present, no Legacy or Succession Duty is payable on bequests or benefits of less than £2,000 to a widow, £2,000 to an infant child, or £1,000 to a child of full age. I propose to retain these reliefs but, in the case of a child of full age, to raise the limit from £1,000 to £2,000. Fourthly, I intend to provide that benefits of no more than £100, no matter to whom accruing by inheritance, shall be exempt. Finally, I propose no increase in the rate on charitable bequests; this will remain at 10 per cent. I propose that these changes shall apply to deaths occurring after today. I estimate the increased yield at £9,000,000 in a full year. The yield this year will be very small, since these duties are normally collected a year or more after the date of death.

I turn next to the Stamp Duties, in which there has been no important change since the late Mr. Austen Chamberlain, as he then was, doubled most of the rates in his Budget of 1920, two years after the end of the first World War. I now propose, following his example, at this corresponding point after the second World War, to double a number of the Stamp Duties, which I shall specify in a moment, though over a less wide field. than Mr. Austen Chamberlain did. Mr. Austen Chamberlain doubled the duty on cheques and receipts; I think that is a futile proceeding, and I do not propose to repeat it. I start with Stock Exchange transactions. I propose to double all the Stamp Duties relating to stocks and shares, namely the Contract Note Duties, the Transfer Duty, and the duties on bearer securities, debentures and Letters of Allotment. Most of these duties are payable on graduated scales. Full details of the changes will be found in the White Paper.

I propose also, subject to relief for small transactions, to double the Stamp Duty on transfer of property. This duty was not doubled by Mr. Austen Chamberlain in 1920, because it had been doubled in 1909 by Mr. Lloyd George, who then increased it from 10s. per cent. to £1 per cent. On small transfers, of £500 or less, the Stamp Duty has stood for nearly a century at 10s. per cent., and I propose to leave it there, and also to leave the present duty on transfers of between £500 and £1,500 unchanged at the existing rate of per cent. Above £1,500, the rate will rise gradually up to £2,000 when the new full rate of £2 per cent. as against £1 per cent. will become payable. I propose likewise to double the present Stamp Duty on leases and mortgages, except on ordinary tenancy agreements at a rental of less than £100 a year on which the existing rate of duty will be continued. I estimate that these various increases in Stamp Duties which I have so far mentioned—I have another to come—will produce another £20 million in a full year, and about £12 million this year. These increases cannot come into force until the passage of the Finance Bill into law, and I propose that they shall operate from 1st August next, by which time, I hope, the Bill will have become law.

I have given further special thought to one type of transaction which has attracted much attention, some of it uncomplimentary, namely, the bonus issue. These issues may sometimes be a defensible method of capitalising reserves or genuine profits. They may be. But often they are nothing more than a watering of capital, a method of concealing profits, and so misleading customers, employees, and the general public, and heading off demands for lower prices or better conditions of employment. My two predecessors at the Treasury forbade bonus issues altogether during the war, save in very exceptional cases; and there is something to be said for maintaining this prohibition. I have heard much argument about this question; I have taken much advice; I have consulted many experts. In a quiet way, I have been looking round to see how I might, at the same time, both give a little pleasure and collect a little revenue. It seemed to me that there was a case for my being a little more forthcoming in permitting bonus issues, on condition that the public also participated in a reasonable rake-off from these somewhat debatable operations.

I intend, therefore, to impose an additional Stamp Duty of 10 per cent. on the value of all bonus issues passed by the Capital Issues Committee, to which well-trusted body I propose to give an extended discretion in regard to these issues.

I should, perhaps, remind the Committee that a bonus issue may take either of two forms. First, there is the bonus issue proper, which is a gratuitous issue of new shares to existing shareholders in proportion to their holdings. The characteristic of this type of issue. is that no new money whatsoever is subscribed. This, if one may use a colloquialism, is sheer "money for jam." The second type is an issue of new shares, containing a "bonus element," to existing shareholders; that is to say, an issue of new shares, for which, indeed, the shareholders pay something, but less—and, sometimes, very much less—than their market value. Here, indeed, some new money is put up by the shareholder, but, often, relatively speaking, not very much. Last year I gave the Capital Issues Committee discretion to recommend to the Treasury that consent should be given to bonus element cases—that is, to the second of the two types which I have described—when having regard to all the circumstances, the issue price appears to them to be fair and reasonable. I now propose to give the Capital Issues Committee a similar discretion to recommend consent or refusal, as the case may be, in the case of bonus issues proper.

I am prepared to give the bonus issue this degree of benefit of the doubt. But I should make it clear that this concession is not meant unduly to encourage these transactions, even though I can expect revenue from them; and I ask all promoters of such issues to think carefully before making up their minds that a bonus issue is really essential to the proper management of their business.

The new Stamp Duty will, in the case of public companies, be at the rate of 10 per cent. on the excess of the market value of the bonus share over the sum, if any, which the shareholder pays for it. The market value will be taken as the Stock Exchange valuation of the shares after the issue. In the case of private companies, whose shares are not quoted on the Stock Exchange, the charge of 10 per cent. will fall on the excess of the par value of the share over the sum, if any, paid for it. This duty will be payable by the company making the issue, and will be levied on any bonus issue made from today. It is estimated to yield £5,000,000 in a full year and the same amount this year. Therefore, from Stamp Duties as a whole, I expect to get a further £25 million in a full year, and £17 million this year.

I pass to another topic. Last year I announced in my Budget speech that the Excess Profits Tax would be finally repealed on 31st December, 1946, but that the National Defence Contribution, which was then rechristened the Profits Tax, would go on. I said then, a year ago, that I had been carefully considering whether, when repealing Excess Profits Tax, I should either increase the Profits Tax or introduce some new form of tax on profits or excess dividends. I added that I should be guided in my decision, this year, by a number of considerations, by the general budgetary and financial situation to a large extent, and, to some extent, by the conduct of private enterprise in the meantime. I cannot pretend to be satisfied with the large increases in distributed profits and the higher dividends which have been paid out in so very many cases in the last 12 months. Too much, in my judgment, has been distributed, and too little ploughed back into the business. These increased dividends are the clearest case, anywhere in our national economy, of an inflationary element.

I am very doubtful of the wisdom of affording, in this inflationary atmosphere, to any section of our population, an increase of money income, without a proportionate increase in output or in services rendered in return. I make exception here for increased incomes through tax reductions or improved social services: that is part of public policy. But, generally speaking, we are entitled to think twice, in our present situation, before paying people more money even for the same work. And these increased dividends are a case of paying more money for no work at all—and that is very hard to justify, and, in my view, clearly calls for some fiscal correction. Therefore, I propose to leave the Profits Tax at its present level of 5 per cent., or one shilling in the pound, on undistributed profits which are added to companies' reserves or otherwise re-invested in the business. But I propose to increase the tax to 12½ per cent., or from one shilling to 2s. 6d. in the pound, on distributed profits.

The case for this increase of Profits Tax is threefold. In the first place, I must collect, as I indicated last year, some additional revenue to replace, at least in part, the loss of Excess Profits Tax. The second argument I have already given. Distributed profits have been too high and too inflationary. In the third place, this increase of Profits Tax does rough justice within the broad field of investment income. The cheap money policy has reduced, though with great advantage to the nation as a whole, the income of many rentiers or other persons living on redeemable fixed-interest-bearing securities. The equity stockholder has suffered no such disadvantage, and in some cases, may have actually gained through capital reconstructions which have improved his relative position. There has also been, I am told, much switching from gilt-edged into equities in search of yield. An increased Profits Tax, therefore, whatever may be said about it generally, has a special justification in these days of cheap money, in order to do justice as between one section and another of those who receive income from investments.

I propose to exclude from the Profits Tax individuals and partnerships which are now liable to pay at the rate of 4 per cent. This is fair, I consider, because the profits of individuals and partnerships are liable to Surtax as well as Income Tax, but Surtax does not fall on the undistributed profits of a company. The cost of the concession is small, since individuals and firms provide less than 5 per cent. of the total yield of the tax.

This increase in Profits Tax will give me an additional £36 million in a full year. But, since Profits Tax, like E.P.T. is a deduction for Income Tax, the increase of the Profits Tax means a loss of Income Tax which I put at £16 million at the present rate; so that I get a net gain, from the increased Profits Tax on distributed profits, of £20 million in a full year. The additional yield this year will only be about £1 million net since the tax is Collected a year after the profits are made.

These three sets of changes in the Inland Revenue field—the increases in the Legacy and Succession duties, Stamp Duties and Profits Tax—all taken together, will provide a net gain to the Exchequer of £54 million in a full year and £18 million this year.

I have two more unpleasant topics to touch upon in the field of taxation. In my first Budget, a few months after the end of the war, I took the Purchase Tax off a number of domestic cooking and heating appliances. At that time, everybody welcomed it. No one opposed it, in any part of this House. Indeed, I was pressed to extend the exemptions more and more widely, to include, among other things, electric irons and electric washing machines. [An HON. MEMBER; "Electric chairs?"] I am sure the Committee would wish me to admit them, along with the other articles, in order to yield a little revenue with an accompaniment of justice. At that time, everyone welcomed the concession; everyone pressed for more. The gift of foresight is sometimes denied, not only to Ministers of the Crown and Members of Parliament, but to the whole community. Lord Baldwin once said, in another connection, that "We were all wrong." So we were. It is quite clear we were all wrong—all of us—about these electrical appliances.

In present circumstances, the exemptions can no longer be justified. Most of these appliances make heavy demands on the public gas and electricity services, where the effect of the fuel shortage is most acute and the need for economy most urgent. I propose, therefore, to bring them all back under the tax at the rate of 66?, per cent.—on new articles, of course; anybody who has got an electric iron is all right. The tax will be 66? per cent. of the wholesale value. This is a new rate of duty intermediate between the maximum rate of 100 per cent., which now operates in some cases, and the 33⅓ per cent. rate, which is the rate most widely imposed. I propose also to tax at the same rate of 66⁔ per cent. a further group of gas and electrical appliances. some of which are at present exempt and others taxed at 33⅓ per cent. I will not weary the Committee with the full definition of the articles, which will be found in the White Paper; but among the appliances which will not be affected will be lighting appliances, wireless sets. and electric clocks.

These increases will apply to goods delivered by registered manufacturers and wholesalers to retailers from tomorrow. This is an unpleasant, but a necessary, method of fuel economy. I hope it will also lead to a considerable increase in the export of these articles, which, I am sure, will be much appreciated by persons resident in other parts of the world. The additional revenue from these increases of Purchase Tax will be about £18 million in a full year, and about £13 million this year. The Purchase Tax concession which I mentioned earlier will cost about £2,500,000 in a full year and £2 million this year. On Purchase Tax as a whole, therefore, there will be a net gain to the Exchequer of about £15,500,000 in a full year and £1t million this year.

Finally, in this field, I have something to say about tobacco. We are now smoking one-third more than before the war. Current consumption exceed, 250,000,000 pounds weight a year—an enormous amount—or more than 100,000 tons of tobacco a year. This represents, though it is hard to credit it, about 100,000 million cigarettes, and about 700 million ounces of pipe tobacco, to say nothing of cigars and snuff. About 80 per cent. of our tobacco is imported from the United States; and, to satisfy this insatiable demand, we are drawing heavily and improvidently on the dollars which we earn with our exports, as well as on the proceeds of the American line of credit. It is hardly to be believed, but the whole total of our exports to the United States at this time barely exceeds, in value, our own consumption of American tobacco. The thing has become fantastic, and must be stopped. It is quite clear that we are smoking much more, as a nation, than we can afford, and I have been pressed, from many quarters for some time, to cut down this much too heavy bill. I now, therefore, propose, and I believe that both the Committee and the country as a whole will back me up in this, to make a very steep increase in the tobacco duty.

Most of our tobacco imports come in as unmanufactured leaf, on which I propose to raise the Customs Duty from tomorrow by about 50 per cent.—from 35s. 6d. a pound to 54s. 10d. a pound, with corresponding increases in the rates for other kinds of tobacco. The existing preferential margins will remain unchanged. The effect of this increase will be that the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes will be raised from 2s. 4d. to 3s. 4d., or from 1s. 9d. to 2s. 6d.

I come now to sum up the results of the various tax changes which I am proposing. The tax reductions will cost me £84 million this year, and £96 million in a full year, of which the Income Tax reliefs will cost £76 million this year and £87 million in a full year. On the other hand, tax increases will bring in £106 million this year and £149 million in a full year. Therefore, on balance, I gain £22 million this year and £53 million in a full year, and my prospective surplus for this year will rise from £248 million to 270 million.

The final picture which I would wish to leave with the Committee is one of sharp contrast. Our internal financial position is much better, and our external trading deficit is a good deal worse than it would have been reasonable to anticipate two years ago. In this Budget, I have proposed measures which, I hope, will strengthen both the internal and the external position. If these measures prove not sufficient, stronger and more drastic measures will have to follow, and His Majesty's Government will take the responsibility for proposing these in due course.

These are serious times. But I recall some words, which were written about halfway through the last century, I think, by one who, though not a native of our country, knew us and wished us well. He said that the saw Britain

"not dispirited, not weak, but well remembering that she has seen dark days before; indeed, with a kind of instinct, that she sees a little better on a cloudy day, and that, in storm of battle and calamity she has a secret vigour and a pulse like cannon. I see her, in old age, not decrepit, but young, and still daring to believe in her powers of endurance and expansion, with strength still equal to the time."

Let us, then, be of good courage; let us go forward, with obstinate will and clear purpose, to conquer the hard tasks which lie ahead.

6.32 p.m.

1. Hydrocarbon Oils (Customs)

Resolved:

"That as from six o'clock in the evening on the fifteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven—

(a) the rate of any rebate allowed under Section two of the Finance Act, 1928, on the delivery for home consumption of—

(i) any oils which contain in solution an amount of hard asphalt of not less than one half of one per cent.; or

(ii) any oils of which not more than fifty per cent. by volume distils at a temperature not exceeding 24o degrees centigrade, and of which more than fifty per cent. by volume distils at a temperature not exceeding 34o degrees centigrade, shall be increased from eightpence per gallon to ninepence per gallon; and

(b) the duty chargeable by virtue of subsection (2) of Section eight of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1945, on oils used in a refinery for generating heat, light or power, or for producing gas, shall cease to be chargeable.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

2. Tobacco (Customs)

Resolved:

"That, as from the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, in lieu of the full and preferential duties of customs theretofore chargeable on tobacco imported into the United Kingdom, there shall be charged on tobacco so imported of the descriptions set out in the first column of the following Table—

(a) in the case of tobacco not being an Empire product, duties of customs at the rates respectively specified in the second column of that Table; and

(b) in the case of tobacco being an Empire product, duties of customs at the rates respectively specified in the third column of that Table

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

Resolved:

"That, as from the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, in lieu of the duties of excise theretofore chargeable on tobacco grown in the United Kingdom, there shall be charged on tobacco so grown of the descriptions set out in the first column of the following Table duties of excise at the rates respectively specified in the second column of that Table.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

Resolved:

"That, as respects tobacco on which there have been paid duties of customs or excise at the increased rates for which provision is made by any Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means together with this Resolution, draw. back shall be allowed at the rates set out in the following Table instead of at the rates set out in Part III of the Fourth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1943.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

Resolved:

"That, as from the first day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-seven—

(a) the duties of excise on artificial silk singles yarn or straw and on a licence to be taken out annually by a manufacturer of artificial silk yarn shall cease to be chargeable; and

(b) the rates of duties of customs chargeable under Section four of the Finance Act, 1925, in respect of artificial silk yarn and tissues shall be reduced by sixpence and shall be as follows, that is to say:—

and the Silk Duties (No. 1) Order, 1934, shall have effect subject to the following Amendments of Part II of the First Schedule to that Order (which sets out the rates of duties of customs on certain articles made wholly or partly of artificial silk), that is to say:—

in the second column—

and Section nine of the Finance Act, 1933, shall have effect as if the preceding provisions of this paragraph of this Resolution were contained in an order made under that Section: Provided that nothing in this Resolution shall affect any drawback of duty allowable in respect of artificial silk or any article made wholly or in part of artificial silk where - the duty became chargeable on the artificial silk whether before or after the passing of this Resolution and before the said first day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-seven. And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913".

6. Allowance for Artificial Silk used in
Tyres (Customs)

Resolved:

"That no allowance shall be paid under Section eleven of the Finance Act, 1946, in respect of any artificial silk on which a duty of customs has been paid contained in yarn or tissue used in the manufacture of tyres if that duty becomes chargeable on or after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-seven."

7. Purchase Tax (Intermediate and
Higher Rates)

Resolved:

"That—

(a) as from the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, purchase tax shall be charged in respect of goods of the classes specified in the following Table—

(i) where they are not goods of the classes specified in the Seventh Schedule to the Finance Act, 1942, at an intermediate rate equal to two-thirds of the value of the goods; and

(ii) where they are goods of the classes specified in the said Seventh Schedule, at the higher rate; and

(b) the Treasury shall have power under Section twenty of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, subject to approval by this House, by order to render chargeable at the intermediate rate goods not previously chargeable or chargeable at any other rate and to render goods previously chargeable at the intermediate rate chargeable at any other rate or not chargeable and the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Resolution shall have effect subject to any order under that section."

Domestic appliances and domestic apparatus, being appliances and apparatus of a kind suitable for operation from electric or gas mains, but not including—

lighting and wireless appliances and apparatus;

gramophones or player pianos;

clocks and parts of clocks;

warming pads and blankets;

hair drying machines;

infra-red and ultra-violet ray lamps and radiant heat lamps.

Lawn mowers of a kind suitable for operation from electric mains.

8. Purchase Tax (Exemptions and
Reductions of Rates)

Resolved:

That as from the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, subject to any subsequent order under section twenty of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940,—

(a) purchase tax shall cease to be chargeable in respect of goods of the class specified in Part I of the following Table; and

(b) purchase tax shall become chargeable at the reduced rate and at the basic rate in respect of goods of the classes specified respectively in Parts II and III of the said Table.

9. Charge of Tax

Resolved:

"That—

(a) income tax for the year 1947–48 shall be charged at the standard rate of nine shillings in the pound, and, in the case of an individual whose total income exceeds two thousand pounds, at such higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as Parliament may hereafter determine;

(b) Subject to the provisions of any Act of the present Session relating to transport or electricity, all such enactments as had effect with respect to the income tax charged for the year 1946–47, other than such enactments as by their terms relate only to tax for that year, shall have effect with respect to the income tax charged for the year 1947–48.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

10 Personal Reliefs

Resolved:

"That—

(a) subsection (1);of section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1925 (which, as amended by subsequent enactments, provides for a deduction of tax on an amount equal to one-eighth of the amount of earned income, but not exceeding one hundred and fifty pounds) and subsection (2) of the said section fifteen (which, as amended by subsequent enactments, provides, in a case where an individual or his wife has attained the age of sixty-five years and his total income does not exceed five hundred pounds, for a deduction of tax on an amount equal to one-eighth of his income) shall have effect as if the words 'one-sixth' were substituted for the words 'one-eighth' and the words 'two hundred and fifty pounds' were substituted for the words 'one hundred and fifty pounds';

(b) Section eighteen of the Finance Act, 1920 (which, as amended by subsequent enactments, provides, amongst other things, that the deduction of tax allowable in the case of married persons shall in certain cases be increased by an amount not exceeding seven-eighths of the earned income of the claimant's wife) shall have effect as if the words 'five-sixths' were substituted for the words 'seven-eighths';

(c) Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1920 (which, as amended by subsequent enactments, provides for a deduction of tax on fifty pounds in respect of each child with an income of fifty pounds or less) shall have effect as if the words 'sixty pounds' were substituted for the words 'fifty pounds' in Subsections (1) and (3) thereof; and

(d) Subsection (1) of Section sixteen of the Finance Act, 1943 (which provides, amongst other things, that the deduction of tax allowable in certain cases in respect of a relative of the claimant or of his or her wife or husband who is maintained by the claimant is limited to cases where the total income of the person maintained does not exceed eighty pounds a year and that the allowance is reduced if the total income of that person exceeds thirty pounds a year) shall have effect as if the words 'one hundred and twenty pounds' were substituted for the words 'eighty pounds' and the words 'seventy pounds' were substituted for the words 'thirty pounds':

Provided that the additional relief afforded by this Resolution for the year 1947–48 shall not affect the amount of tax deductible or repayable before the seventh day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-seven.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection. of Taxes Act, 1913."

11. Farm animals

Resolved:

"That, save in so far as may be otherwise provided by any Act of the present Session relating to Finance, animals and other living creatures kept for the purposes of farming or for the purposes of any trade whatsoever shall be treated for income tax purposes as trading stock or, in so far as an option conferred by the said Act to have them treated on an alternative basis has been duly exercised as respects them, on that alternative basis; and that where such an option is availed of or is or has been or may become available, such other consequences shall ensue for income tax purposes to all persons then or thereafter concerned as may be provided by the said Act."

12. Double Taxation Relief

Resolved:

"That the extent and incidence of income tax, for the year 1946–47 and subsequent years of assessment, shall be varied so as to give effect to amendments of the law relating to the effects of provisions in arrangements with the governments of territories outside the United Kingdom for the crediting, against United Kingdom tax, of tax payable under the laws of those territories."

13. Transfers of assets under Coal
Industry Nationalisation Act

Resolved:

"That, as respects past, present and future years of assessment, the law applicable to the income tax of the National Coal Board and the other persons concerned shall be amended in relation to cases where, whether before or after the passing of this Resolution, assets vest in that Board by virtue of any of the provisions of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946."

14. Exceptional Depreciation Allowances

Resolved:

"That any exceptional depreciation allowance in respect of a building or structure for the year of assessment in which the appointed day (within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, 1945) falls shall, for the purposes of section four of that Act, be written off as at the end of the immediately preceding year of assessment, and this Resolution shall apply to all years of assessment, including the year 1946–47."

15. Benefits procured for directors and employees

Resolved:

"That it is expedient to impose liability to income tax where benefits (including benefits which are to be enjoyed only on the happening of particular contingencies) are or are to be procured or provided by bodies for persons who, as directors or otherwise, are taking part or are to take part or have taken part in the management of their affairs, or by employers of any kind for persons who are or are to be or have been their employees."

16. Profits Tax

Resolved:

"That the extent and incidence of the profits tax (for past and future chargeable accounting periods) be varied so as to give effect to amendments as to the rate of the tax, the scope of the tax, the computation of profits and losses for the purposes of the tax, the relief to be given for double taxation and the other conditions subject to which the tax is charged."

17. Excess Profits Tax

Resolved:

"That the extent and incidence of excess profits tax (for all chargeable accounting periods) be varied so as to give effect to amendments as to the meaning of the expression 'remuneration' in reference to directors and to provisions operating where there has been a direction under Section twenty-four of the Finance Act, 1943."

18. Charge of Additional Duty

Resolved:

"That there shall be charged on legacies derived from a testator or intestate dying on or after the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and successions arising on or after that day, on which legacy or succession duty is payable or has before that day been paid under the enactments now in force, a further legacy or succession duty at a rate equal to the rate or aggregate rate of the duty thereon under those enactments; and this Resolution shall apply also to other legacies and successions so as to authorise charging the further legacy or succession duty thereon on deaths and other events happening on or after the said sixteenth day of April."

19. Conveyances, Transfers and Leases

Resolved:

"That the stamp duties charged under or by reference to the headings 'Conveyance or Transfer, whether on sale or otherwise', 'Conveyance or Transfer on sale of any property' and 'Lease or Tack' in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, shall be double those now chargeable, but this Resolution—

(a) shall not affect the operation of any enactment limiting an ad valorem duty to ten shillings in certain cases;

(b) shall not apply to the duty chargeable on any conveyance or transfer on sale, other than of any stocks (including units under a unit trust scheme) or marketable securities, or to the duty chargeable in respect of any consideration other than rent for a lease at a rent not exceeding twenty pounds a year where the conveyance or transfer or the lease is not a transaction, and does not form part of a larger transaction, or of a series of transactions, in respect of which the amount or value or the aggregate amount or value of the consideration exceeds fifteen hundred pounds; and

(c) shall not apply to the duty chargeable on a lease (other than a lease operating as a volutary disposition inter vivos) for an indefinite term or a term not exceeding thirty-five years where the sole consideration is a rent not exceedings one hundred pounds a year."

20. Stocks, Marketable Securities and
Letters of Allotment, etc.

Resolved:

"That—

(a) the stamp duties charged on marketable securities, share warrants and stock certificates to bearer, and on other instruments to bearer, shall be double those now chargeable;

(b) the stamp duties charged under section one hundred and fourteen of the Stamp Act, 1891, as amended by subsequent enactments, and under section thirty-seven of the Finance Act, 1939, by way of composition for the stamp duty chargeable on transfers of certain stocks and the stamp duty charged under section one hundred and fifteen of the Stamp Act, 1891, as amended by subsequent enactments, by way of composition in respect of the transfer of certain stocks (including units under unit trust schemes) and otherwise shall be double those now chargeable;

(c) the stamp duties charged on contract notes in respect of stocks (including units under unit trust schemes) and marketable securities shall be double those now chargeable; and

(d) the stamp duties charged on letters of allotment, letters of renunciation and other documents having the effect of a letter of allotment, and on scrip certificates and similar documents shall be double those now chargeable "

21. Loan Capital, Bonds, Mortgages, etc.

Resolved:

"That—

the stamp duty charged on loan capital under section eight of the Finance Act, 1899, shall be double that now chargeable;

(b) the stamp duties charged under or by reference to the headings "Bond, Covenant or Instrument" and "Mortgage, Bond, Debenture, Covenant and Warrant of Attorney" in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, shall be double those now chargeable; and

(c) the reference in the heading "Bond given pursuant to the directions of any Act," etc., in the said Schedule to duties of excise or customs shall include a reference to purchase tax."

22. Bonus Issues of Securities

Resolved:

"That where on or after the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, a company issues any shares or other securities or increases the rights or reduces the liabilities attached to any shares or other securities and does so by way of bonus to members or debenture holders of itself or of another company, a statement shall be made of the value of the bonus, and that statement shall be charged with an ad valorem stamp duty of ten pounds for every hundred pounds or part of a hundred pounds of the value of the bonus, and any Act of the present Session relating to Finance may contain provision—

(a) for determining how far any matter is to be treated as being by way of bonus to any persons, and in particular for so treating an issue if the offer is limited to those persons or if in connection with the issue those persons receive preferential treatment; and

(b) for determining the value of the bonus."

23. Essential Commodities Reserves Fund

Resolved:

"That the sum of nine hundred and seventy-three thousand and forty-one pounds fourteen shillings and sixpence be paid out of the Essential Commodities Reserves Fund into the Exchequer."

24. AMENDMENT OF LAW

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance."—[ Mr. Dalton.]

6.36 p.m.