asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the operation of VAT so far as small traders are concerned; and if he will make a statement.

We have had a number of representations about various aspects of the operation of the tax.

Bearing in mind that VAT has been in force in this country for several years, and taking account of the rates of inflation in recent years, is it not high time that the commencement rate for VAT was drastically raised? Would not this bring real benefit to a large number of small traders in my constituency and elsewhere?

This point was raised by the National Federation for Self-Employed when it met the Financial Secretary a few days ago. There are problems about raising the threshold from £5,000. Such action would mean that many traders who were not registered would not get credit for the input tax. We shall consider this matter, as we shall consider other representations made to us by the federation.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider allowing small traders to make estimated quarterly returns and then a final return when their auditors have been in at the year end which would adjust any errors made in the estimated returns?

That was one of the matters put to us. It was suggested that there should be just annual returns. Another variation is the proposal mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—an estimate every three months and a reckoning at the end of the year. These matters are being carefully considered, and I cannot say more at this stage.

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said about examining the threshold and relieving small traders of some of the VAT load. Has any estimate been made of the cost in money and resources falling upon small traders, because many of them have complained to me that they are finding it difficult to get people to deal with the problems of VAT and they are thinking of going out of business partly because of it?

I cannot give an estimate of the cost, but most Community countries have a much lower threshold than our £5,000. The burden on people in those countries is probably even greater than it is on people in this country. We accept that there is a burden with VAT. We are considering the matter very carefully.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many representations he has now received objecting to the imposition of 25 per cent. VAT on sales by the boating industry.

About 350.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that among those representations are many of the views put to me by boat-builders in Littlehampton who are clearly facing the direct impact of lost business because of the imposition of the higher rate of VAT? The introduction of a multi-rate VAT brings us back to the worst absurdities of purchase tax. Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the Government are wrong and tell us when the matter will be put right?

I do not accept those remarks about multi-rate VAT. We accept that the introduction of the 25 per cent. rate has had a marginal effect on employment in boat building, but it should be remembered that the major drop in orders occurred in the first three months of this year. There was a 40 per cent. drop. This is now agreed with the Ship and Boatbuilding National Federation. It had nothing to do with VAT. It was caused by the world recession. We are keeping the situation under review. We are having discussions with the federation and will keep the matter under close scrutiny in the next few months.

When will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider putting the VAT rate back to 10 per cent., so that he can both raise more money and get rid of the 25 per cent. rate?

This matter was discussed fully on the Floor of the House and in Committee during the passage of the Finance Bill, and we have nothing further to say.

Does not the fact that orders in the boat building industry were falling by 40 per cent. even before the introduction of the higher rate of VAT underline the folly of singling out that industry as one of those to be subjected to the higher rate? Does the whole history not underline the double folly of making selective impositions of a tax which was originally intended to be across the board?

It is not correct to say that the industry was singled out. What is more, most other countries of the European Community have more rates of VAT than we do. The fact that we have introduced a 25 per cent. rate on less essential items is part of the strategy to raise more revenue and to try to deal with inflation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of growth of the money supply would be consistent with a rate of annual inflation of 10 per cent.

No clear relationship has been established to link a particular rate of growth of the money supply with a particular rate of inflation, but in broad terms, there is little risk of monetary factors stimulating inflation if the growth of the money supply, M3, is kept well within the rate of growth of money GDP.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the indications are that the money supply is now well above the level which will be necessary to achieve the aim of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of a 10 per cent. rate of inflation at the end of next year? Therefore, will he look carefully into what is to happen after the present recession is past? The indications are that we may be having Latin American rates of inflation unless he keeps a severe eye on this matter.

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. My right hon. Friend has succeeded in getting down the rate of growth of M3 compared with what it was under the previous Government. M3 is the relevant indicator here. The hon. Gentleman can be sure that we shall continue to regard it as important to keep the money supply under control.

As a contribution to reducing expenditure, what would be the saving in public expenditure if the Government abandoned their proposal to purchase 51 per cent. of North Sea oil?

I do not think that that arises out of this Question. The hon. Gentleman has asked that question on many occasions. All that I can tell him is that the figures offered by the Opposition are, fortunately, a gross exaggeration.

On the Government's figures.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the rate of VAT on garden furniture.

Eight per cent.

Will the Minister confirm that the rate of VAT on garden tools, such as spades, forks and rakes, is 25 per cent.? Is it not monstrous that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in one of his many residences, can take his ease in an 8 per cent. VAT-rated deckchair, whereas those of us who have gardens or allotments and are growing vegetables to help both ourselves and the country have to pay a 25 per cent. rate of VAT on the tools that we use?

With respect, the analogy which the hon. Gentleman has drawn is not correct. The correct analogy is between garden furniture and furniture in general. That is why garden and household furniture are rated at 8 per cent. Tools are in a separate category. Power garden tools are charged at 25 per cent. because they are large, reasonably easily identified items, and the burden on the retailer caused by a higher rate of VAT on those items is not considerable.

Is it not also inequitable that the Prime Minister can enjoy his round of golf with his golf clubs taxed at 8 per cent. VAT—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Gentlemen moaning. Many of my constituents' jobs are in jeopardy because they work in companies which build boats and produce ancillary equipment. There is no point in the Government's pretending that they do not know or care that the jobs of people in many parts of the South Coast region, Scotland and other boat building areas are in jeopardy. Moreover, exports are being lost as a result of the Government's deliberate acts of policy.

If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to attend the debates on the Finance Bill he would have heard that various small items of leisure occupations, such as golf balls, are not charged at 25 per cent. VAT, because such a provision would substantially increase the burden on retailers. We deliberately chose the larger items to reduce the burden on retailers as far as possible. If the hon. Gentleman wants the rate increased to 25 per cent on smaller items, we shall of course consider it. However, I do not believe that the retailers in his constituency will like it.

I assure my hon. Friend that had he attended the Finance Bill Committee discussions he would have discovered no reason at all why boats should be picked out for the higher rate of VAT. He would have discovered chat the Government regard non-essential things as subjects for higher-rated VAT, and they include not only canoes, but electric kettles and electric irons. The Government consider that all those items are non-essential.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the IMF Committee; what transpired; and when he next intends to meet it.

I attended the IMF Interim Committee meeting in Paris in June. On what transpired, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on 13th June. I propose to attend the IMF Annual Meeting in Washington at the beginning of September.

Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to show the IMF the reserve powers Bill, if he has not already done so?

No, Sir.

Before the September meeting, will the right hon. Gentleman put more emphasis on the positive side of the Government's anti-inflation policy—that is, higher productivity and harder work? Will he say a little more about the new industrial strategy which has been mentioned in Press reports in the last day or two?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has referred to the NEDC meeting which took place yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and I discussed with the other members of the NEDC the way in which Government policy is developing in this area, and we shall continue the discussion in the autumn. I agree strongly with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to improve the industrial performance and economic performance of this country. This requires macro-economic measures, to which the instruments in the Industry Bill will make a major contribution.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the estimated effect on the public borrowing requirement in the current year and next year of the imposition of cash limits in the public sector as proposed in Command Paper No. 6151 "The Attack on Inflation".

The measures proposed in Cmnd. 6151 are unlikely to have a significant net effect on the public sector borrowing requirement in the current year. As regards next year, the application of cash limits should help to reduce some of the uncertainty in forecasting the borrowing requirement.

That is very disappointing. Is the right hon. Gentleman not supposed to be in control of this operation? Before he started all this talk about cash limits, he must have had some idea of what he meant their effect to be, next year, on the borrowing requirement. Has there not been a degree of backsliding since the brave days when he said that he would need convincing that a particular case did not require the imposition of cash limits?

The hon. Gentleman should observe the difference between the level of public expenditure, about which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a number of statements, and cash limits, which are a system for the better control of public expenditure. Once we have determined the appropriate level, cash limits will help to control and to ensure that we achieve that level.

The Prime Minister spoke on Tuesday about "a new lot" of public expenditure cuts. Will the right hon. Gentleman say when this new lot is likely to come along? Will it be in October, in September, or this month? On the issue of public expenditure cuts, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is, to quote Sir Monty Finniston in another context, no possibility of running away indefinitely from this issue?

The hon. Gentleman knows that it is customary to publish a public expenditure White Paper later in the year. At the moment, the Government are going through the normal processes of considering the level of public expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a number of statements in the House about what he expects to achieve in respect of the level of public expenditure. I cannot add to them at the moment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cuts in public expenditure clamoured for by the Opposition will be resisted by many Government supporters? Will not the so-called cure of cutting back production and consumption only worsen the disease of unemployment?

My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he wishes these cuts in the increase in public expenditure to coincide with the upturn in world trade, so that there can be a movement of people into export-oriented industries to improve the balance of the British economy. We understand the anxieties about public expenditure. But my hon. Friend, in turn, must understand the great increase in the proportion of British resources devoted to public expenditure in the past two years.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish the initial cash limit figures and the eventual outturn related directly to those initial figures, so that Parliament can monitor the way in which the policy is operating?

We are considering publication. I cannot give any assurance about it at the moment. The matter will be considered in due course.

In respect of the public sector generally, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important that the programmes are as cost effective as possible, and are seen to be? Will he consider the proposals of the Expenditure Committee to publish as much as possible of the detailed programmes, so that they may be analysed not only by Parliament but by other interested bodies?

We always consider seriously the proposals of the Expenditure Committee, especially on public expenditure.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make it his practice to give estimates of the public sector borrowing requirements, other than at Budget time.

No, Sir.

Will the Paymaster-General reconsider that answer? Does he recall that in November of last year the Chancellor gave a figure of £6,300 million as his estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement, but that five months later the requirement proved to be £7,600 million? Does he expect that the Chancellor's forecast for the current year will be more accurate than the appalling estimate he made as recently as November 1974?

No, I do not think it is right at present to reconsider this answer. A satisfactory revision of the estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement can be made and its implications fully understood only in the context of a revised forecast for the economy as a whole.

When my right hon. Friends are considering this question, and when we get the series of cuts which are likely to take place in public expenditure, will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that if any local authorities in assisted areas wish to bring in schemes to help the unemployed in those areas, this will not be counted against them and, in fact, the schemes will be exempted precisely because of the very high level of unemployment in areas such as the West of Scotland, Merseyside, and South Wales?

I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance. As he knows, this Government have devoted considerable attention to assisting development areas, but the expenditure situation in respect of local authorities is serious. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made a statement about it recently. I cannot add to that.

Is the Paymaster-General aware that in the United States, for example, the authorities publish forecasts not just for the borrowing requirement but for the growth of the money supply, which the Treasury refuses to do here? Is he further aware that in the United States and Japan the Budget judgment is discussed openly by the Government for many months, whereas here it is delivered by the Chancellor like a white rabbit conjured out of a hat on Budget day? Why cannot the Treasury be a little less secretive?

The hon. Gentleman will also realise that a number of these forecasts, even in the very different economic situation of the United States, are very inaccurate. Forecasts which we might make—for example, in respect of the money supply—would be subject to many influences, including external influences, which we cannot control. It could be self-defeating. It could be a destabilising factor. Therefore, at this point we have come to the conclusion that the balance of advantage is against publication.

Does not the Paymaster-General think that it was a little foolish—indeed, somewhat amazing—that several weeks ago when the Chancellor was under pressure yet again he castigated the Opposition for being too obsessed with the size of the borrowing requirement and its relationship to the prevailing rate of inflation, and said proudly: "After all, look at Germany. It has the same size borrowing requirement as ours, at £9 billion."

That question might lead the hon. Gentleman to think a little more deeply about the relationship of the public sector borrowing requirement to the rate of inflation.

The Chancellor said that forecasts are very inaccurate in the United States, but the Government's own forecasts have not been too hot, either. Is he not damaging his own case by being such a blushing bride on the question of the public sector borrowing requirement? Is it not the position that if the £6 limit is to work effectively in the public sector and in local authorities as from 1st August, this will greatly reduce the total outturn of pay increases in the public sector, and this, presumably, should change some of the arithmetic for the public sector borrowing requirement? Would it not help the Government at least to reduce the present appalling lack of confidence if they were more forthcoming on the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) suggested?

I do not think that it would help in the respect that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. The reason for not publishing certain forecasts is not that they are inaccurate. We all know that all forecasts are likely to be inaccurate. It has been judged by successive Governments that these forecasts are likely to have a certain value. The point is that they are not merely inaccurate but in certain circumstances could have a destabilising effect and could give rise to certain expectations about Government policy. It is obviously a balance of considerations. All that I am saying is that in present circumstances we are of the view that these should not be published.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider allowing companies to include as a liability their contingent liability for redundancy payments when arriving at the profit for which they are assessed for corporation tax.

No. It would not be right to allow companies to establish tax-free reserves to meet unquantifiable liabilities which may not arise.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the contingent liability here is greater than the assets of many companies and that, as unemployment mounts further and further, we shall see a very serious situation developing in many cases?

I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can equate the contingent liability with assets. The liability is contingent and, because of that, it cannot be quantified, because no company will know the pattern of redundancy. That is why the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is impractical. I might also point out that companies obtain relief for payments made into the redundancy fund against their corporation tax and for the net cost of paying out, from their own resources, redundancy payments to their employees who are made redundant. We consider that they are adequately compensated in that way.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he hopes to introduce a double taxation relief agreement with Brazil.

As soon as current negotiations with Brazil have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Byzantine though the complexities are, is it understood that other countries seem to have overcome the difficulties, especially the Germans and the Japanese, and that we are at something of a disadvantage in this important market? Is there any chance of settling this question before the Brazilian Foreign Minister arrives on 21st October?

I cannot comment on the last part of my hon. Friend's question. The other countries which have reached agreements have a system of double taxation which is different from ours. We give credit against credit. They tend to exempt foreign income completely. The basis of our system has been that we give maximum credit. If we accept the Brazilian proposals—and we are still considering them very seriously—they will have implications for double taxation treaties that we have with other countries.

Is the Brazilian rate of inflation higher or lower than ours?

I have no idea.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of money annually injected into the economy by the credit card system.

Separate figures for the amount of bank lending to persons through credit card accounts are not published, on grounds of commercial confidence. However, the latest figures available for total bank advances to persons outstanding, which include amounts outstanding on bank credit card accounts, show little change over the past year.

I am a user of one of these cards. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they represent a permanent temptation to overspend? Therefore, is there not a case for a suspension of these credit facilities, at least until we have brought inflation successfully under control?

There has been no increase, or at least little change, over the past year in total bank advances to persons with outstanding accounts. Therefore, it does not appear that these cards are having the effect that the hon. Gentleman fears. He knows that in December 1973 the minimum payment was increased. Therefore, I do not see any reason for action on this matter at present.

Is not the position similar to that of advertising? It may be a marginal factor. Is it not absurd that, on the one hand, the Government rightly want to curb expenditure on personal consumption, and yet, on the other, they allow or connive at the existence of things which tempt people to spend to an unnecessary degree?

I should point out to the House that, like the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), I use these cards myself. I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) would want the convenience that they represent to be removed, unless there were serious reasons for doing so.

What view does my right hon. Friend take of the ability to use credit cards abroad to buy goods above the £300 spending limit?

This follows from the freedom of trade in which this country engages. It is possible to import goods from abroad, by various means of payment, above the £300 limit which is imposed in respect of foreign travel.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now take steps to increase the personal tax allowances and introduce a reduced rate first band of tax to ameliorate the marginal tax rate of low earners.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now introduce a reduced rate of income tax for the first band of taxable earnings.

I share my hon. Friends' concern about the burdens on those who are just within the tax-paying field, but I do not think that the introduction of reduced rates of income tax will provide an effective solution. In his last Budget my right hon. Friend put up the allowances for both single and married people and single parents, and these increases will have helped to ease matters for many among the least well-off taxpayers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that although the £6 limit has been advocated as of help to the low paid, in many cases the low paid will lose almost all the £6 through loss of means-tested benefits, so they may suffer a net loss in income? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Treasury must take steps to ameliorate the situation? Otherwise, we shall face serious consequences this autumn.

I share my hon. Friend's concern. The difficulty is that at the end of the day any substantial improvement will have to be financed. To be realistic, the only true way of financing a substantial improvement would be by either reducing the rate of personal allowances or increasing the basic rate of income tax. If we reduced personal allowances, more people would be brought into the poverty trap. If we increased the basic rate, many people who now pay tax and also receive rent and rate rebates would move into a higher marginal withdrawal rate, which at present is about 60 per cent. At the end of the day any relief must be financed.

Is it not a fact that, by dispensing with the reduced rate for the lower bands of income the Treasury has deprived itself of a most useful way of avoiding the problem of the poverty trap? Should this not be looked at again?

No, Sir. I do not agree. At the end of the day there are many ways in which we can assist, but we must still find substantial sums of money, whether by a reduced rate, by personal allowances, or in any other way.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider again the reduced rate band? Why are the Government not prepared to introduce a new reduced rate? Will he indicate whether 35 per cent. is the highest low rate in Europe? Does he recognise the substantial disincentive, even to people on comparatively low earnings, caused by the considerable impact of taxation coming in at the lowest rate, including national insurance contributions?

I agree with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's statement, but if we had a reduced rate of 25 per cent. on, for instance, the first £300 of taxable income, the cost would be £1,000 million. I am not saying that we should not spend that money, but that £1,000 million will have to come from the main bands of income tax in one way or another. Whether we have a reduced rate or any other system, at the end of the day we must find the money.

Does the Minister agree that his replies so far are very disappointing for those who are concerned about the poorer sections of the community? Does he further agree that the only way for people to escape from the poverty trap is to have indexed-linked personal tax allowances, together with social security benefits, and a qualifying level for those benefits? Has the Minister considered the positive alternative, put forward by the Scottish National Party in the recent debate, of indexation as an alternative to the £6 flat-rate increase referred to by the Chancellor?

We have debated indexation in the House on a number of occasions since the beginning of the year. Indexation involves many large questions which go outside the income tax area. We are constantly considering the matter and are aware of the problems of the lower income earners.

Will the Treasury lose no opportunity to point out how costly various schemes for separate direct and indirect taxation in Scotland and England would be?

Does not the volume of questions from both sides of the House drawing attention to the burden of direct taxation on low income earners, as well as on every other class in the community, demonstrate that we have now reached the limit of the taxable capacity of our people? Does it not underline the strong case for concentrating on reducing public expenditure in the light of the burdens about which complaints have been made in this series of questions?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he now intends to produce a new White Paper on public expenditure over the years 1975–76 to 1980–81.

The next White Paper on public expenditure, covering the years to 1979–80, will be published when the Government have completed the 1975 public expenditure review.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that when it is published it will take into account the comments and recommendations of the Expenditure Committee, whose report was referred to in an earlier supplementary question? Will he also give an undertaking that if there are to be substantial cuts in public expenditure some of us who were previously opposed to the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) will incline to the view that those cuts should be in the defence sector rather than in the social service sector?

We shall of course consider the report of the Expenditure Committee. As I said earlier, we always consider the reports of that Committee. I note what my hon. Friend said about the forms of cuts in public expenditure of which he would most approve.

Defence expenditure is not the only obvious candidate for cuts in Government expenditure. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the over-ambitious road programme is one such candidate? Will he bear in mind that if there is any attempt to reduce local authority housing expenditure there will be the devil of a row?

All those points will be borne in mind.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one factor affecting public expenditure that he could examine in the interim is the rapid rate at which he and his right hon. Friends are proposing to phase out nationalised industry subsidies? Is he aware that ordinary people will be facing the doubling of their electricity bills this winter? Can some reasonable process be gone through by which the phasing out is slowed down and the situation thereby ameliorated?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the position quite clear, and I have nothing to add to what he said.

Will the Paymaster-General make it absolutely clear that if inflation is to be successfully defeated, the task must be undertaken by means of a policy sustained over some years, and that an inescapable part of that policy must be continued reductions in public expenditure? Will he give us an assurance that the Government will give, as quickly as possible, plain indications of what is intended, and that there will be no danger of these restraints being escaped by local authorities seeking to spend more by heaping larger burdens upon the ratepayers?

It is certainly true that dealing with inflation in this country will require concentrated Government activity over a period of years. It is equally true that public expenditure's share of United Kingdom resources has greatly increased over recent years, and that this has become an excessive burden on those resources. This is a matter which the Government are currently considering. The results of those considerations will be published in the ordinary way in the White Paper.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report the percentages of wages and salaries as part of the national income for the years 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974, respectively.

Yes, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether those figures will show that the ratio of wages and salaries to the gross national product varies very little over the years in question? Will he give consideration to the question of bringing together more than ever the directors of companies and the trade unions to ensure not only that we shall have greater investment in industry so that we shall have greater production, but that there will be a greater understanding between employees and employers, to ensure greater harmony in industry throughout the country?

When he studies these figures my hon. Friend will see that there has been some variation of wages and salaries, excluding Armed Forces' pay, as a percentage of national income. For example, in 1950 it was 64·1 per cent. and in 1974 it was 70·7 per cent., so there are variations. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that better understanding within industry would contribute to greater investment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although there have been variations the figures show that they have not been as great as has been suggested? Therefore, it is not true to say, as is being said the whole time by all types of economists, by the Government Front Bench, by the Opposition Front Bench, and by Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, that inflation is due to the rapid increase in wages. Is it not clear that those figures prove the very opposite?

No, I do not think that is clear. My right hon. Friends have not said that wages are the sole cause of inflation. They have from time to time indicated a number of causes of inflation. What has been said is that recently wages have been the prime cause of inflation in this country. Nothing in these figures disproves that assertion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from interested bodies on the need for early legislation for the regulation of taxis and private hire cars; whether he is satisfied that these vehicles should be regulated under an Act 130 years old; and what plans he has to introduce legislation.

Representations have been received from a number of MPs, local authority associations, individual local authorities and trade associations. My right hon. Friend recognises the need for amending legislation on this subject, and draft proposals are being prepared which he hopes will be circulated in the autumn to the interested bodies.

Is the hon. Lady aware that that answer is very welcome indeed? Will she take note of the peculiar anomalies in the operation of taxis and private hire cars in rural areas which have urban communities amongst them? It is there that the confusion of the out-dated law is the greatest. To sort this out would be of great help.

It is because there are these anomalies and because considerable complications have been introduced by local government reorganisation that we are introducing amending legislation.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the trade unions will receive copies of the proposed legislation which she is considering? Will these proposals also cover the question of advertising by unlicensed private hire cars? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time we had a proper economic study of the whole question throughout the entire country in order to put the whole matter on a viable and sensible basis instead of the restricted coverage that we now have?

I shall see that the trade unions are sent the proposals. I am sure that they will include suggestions about advertising. As to the economic point, I shall refer that to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to monitor and require the use of prisoner control units in Her Majesty's prisons; and if he will make a further statement on control units.

We have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) on 17th July.—[Vol. 895, c. 574.]

May I point out that as originally printed the Question contains a mistake and that the word "require" should be "restrain"? May I suggest that the answer is not satisfactory, in that there are considerable misgivings about the use of these units? The brainwashing and psychological control implications of them are wholly alien to this country's traditions in the prison service, and it is up to the Government to stop them now.

There is one other error in the Question, in that it is not right to refer to "control units". There is only one unit in operation, and that is at Wakefield. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that an active review is now taking place of the whole matter of the control unit. It has not been operating for many months. I myself have visited it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that every aspect will be considered—not only the question of control, and who is in charge of individual prisoners; we are also assessing the prisoners during their stay at the control unit and when they have left it.

Will the Under-Secretary of State say what improvements there have been, if any, in the discipline and good order of those prisons from which the disruptive prisoners have been taken? Will she also say what has been the psychological effect on prisoners who have been put into the control unit?

This is one of the matters which are being examined. The psychology department at Wakefield is collecting information with a view to assessing the behaviour and response of the very few prisoners involved.

asked the Prime Minister if he will review the arrangements for ministerial co-ordination in relation to North Sea and other maritime resources.

The present arrangements are kept under regular review.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an urgent need to co-ordinate British maritime policy, instead of having the present patchwork? Is he further aware that the vital protection of our North Sea oil and gas resources cries out for better coordination of the Armed Forces, the four separate police authorities, and the commercial operators, as well as Government Departments?

I am not sure what the hon. Member meant in the first part of his question, about having a co-ordinated maritime policy in place of what he calls the present patchwork. Perhaps he will pursue that point with the relevant Ministries. Alternatively, I shall be glad to hear from him in greater detail on what he has in mind.

May I give an example of excellent co-operation between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment in making Port Edgar, in West Lothian, into a national offshore engineering laboratory? This is in a constituency which is next to the North Sea. I assure my right hon. Friend that co-ordination is far more satisfactory than it used to be.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend both for his remarks in the latter part of his supplementary question, about which great concern has been expressed in the House, and for drawing attention to the case which he has warmly welcomed.

Will the Prime Minister re-examine certain aspects of co-ordination? Is he aware that there was a serious diving accident in my constituency, about which I put down a Question and wrote a letter to the Department of Trade? Is he aware that the letter was referred to the Department of Energy and the Question was referred to the Department of Employment?

I am aware of this case. There have, indeed, been a number of tragic cases, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He knows also that the safety of divers operating at offshore installations is now covered by the Offshore Installations (Diving Operations) Regulations 1974, which came into force at the beginning of this year. He will also be aware of the comprehensive code of regulations introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy under the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971. There has now been a comprehensive attempt to coordinate activities in order to develop safety and to minimise tragedies of the kind referred to by the right hon. Gentleman.

With regard to fuel resources in the North Sea, will my right hon. Friend now give an assurance that when the White Paper on devolution is published there will be a categorical assurance that there will remain a United Kingdom Department of Energy?

Yes, Sir. The United Kingdom Department of Energy will be responsible for these matters.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with ministerial control over North Sea oil? Does he agree that a separately instituted conservation authority would be a much better public safeguard in this respect?

That proposal was put forward by the Conservative Party at the time of the General Election in 1974, or perhaps a little while before that. I am satisfied that the control of depletion and conservation will be adequate under the legislation at present before Parliament and under the powers of the Secretary of State for Energy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reply he has given to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) that Scottish oil is to remain under the control of this House is worth several hundred votes to the Scottish National Party at the next election?

The hon. Gentleman found that his persuasiveness in the recent referendum fell far short of the hopes he held and the claims he puts forward from time to time. When we have discussed these matters in debate in the House and at Question Time there has never been a satisfactory answer to the possible desire of certain parts of Scotland not to regard even the kind of Scottish dream which the hon. Gentleman puts forward as appropriate for those areas.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Energy to the Institute for Workers' Control in Sheffield on 20th July about the Government's domestic policies represented Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for Energy's speech at the Institute for Workers' Control in Sheffield about industrial policies represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for Energy's public speech at the Institute for Workers' Control in Sheffield on 20th July about industrial policies represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minster if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Energy to the Institute for Workers' Control at Sheffield on Sunday 20th July about industrial policies represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Energy to the Institute for Workers' Control, in Sheffield on 20th July about industrial policy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for Energy's speech at the Institute for Workers' Control in Sheffield on 20th July about industrial policies represents Government policy.

Yes, Sir.

Did the Prime Minister see Press reports to the effect that in his speech the Secretary of State talked about the independent rôle which Cabinet Ministers would need to play in working out Labour Party policy? Can he confirm reports that under the Secretary of State's chairmanship the Labour Party is preparing yet another programme for control of British industry and financial institutions? Will he please call it off before confidence is entirely destroyed?

The only published quotations from the speech which I have seen in the national and local Press referred to the need to sustain and maintain the Labour Government—unexceptionable, and in the highest national interest—and to the need to develop party policy in parallel with the programme of the Government. This was done by the Conservative Party. During its period of office, in drawing up its policies it was naturally looking forward to what it hoped would be a continuing period in office. As for the question of the participation of Ministers in the National Executive or its committees, the situation has been made very clear by me. I welcome the fact that Ministers, constituency parties and others play their full part. I try to do so myself, but this does not and cannot mean—all Ministers are aware of this—that any Minister can dissociate himself from the policies and actions of the Government of which he is a member. Nor can any Minister appear to or purport to commit the Government in advance of their deliberations and decisions announced in this House.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the greatest danger to the Government's anti-inflation policy will arise from the disillusionment of workers because of increasing unemployment? If so, will he read carefully the report of last night's debate, in which there was virtual unanimity on the Government side of the House in the desire for import controls on textiles, footwear and clothing? Will he note that this unanimity is shared by the trade union representatives in those industries who came to the House on Tuesday?

I look forward to reading the report of that debate in full when it is available. My hon. Friend should be careful to distinguish between a general policy of import control, which would have very bad effects on this country as a big trading nation, and the cases urged again yesterday in the debate and at Question Time, in respect of unfair competition and dumping. We are considering a number of these cases and are seeking proof. We shall not hesitate to act. We have already acted in a number of cases, either within existing powers or by informal arrangements with the Governments of the countries behaving in that way.

With unemployment now rising at a tragic rate, might not work forces be tempted more and more, often by outside influences, to conduct illegal sit-ins or take control of their factories? What plans has the Prime Minister to deal with this? Will he assure us that all members of the Cabinet have a collective responsibility to see that these plans are fulfilled?

The answer to the latter part of the question is "Yes". The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the deep anxiety felt in factories that are facing closure as a result of what we all agree is the worst world-wide depression since the 1930s, and about which leaders of all parties warned in a number of speeches during the previous two elections and at times between and since. This point does not arise out of the speech referred to in the Question, as far as I am aware of the contents of the speech. On the wider aspect of the need to give more confidence, particularly to people who are anxious, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade on industrial participation, which seemed to receive a warm welcome from both sides of the House and the Press.

Returning to the question of collective ministerial responsibility, is it not clear that at times the Labour Party conference and the NEC may take up one position while the Government take another? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this puts Ministers on the NEC, or in their position as ordinary party members trying to carry out conference policy, in an extremely difficult and embarrassing position? Apart from the fact that the Government should not move away from conference policy and manifesto commitments, is it not clear that it is a pretence to the whole world—and has been for a long time—that all Ministers accept definite policies of the Government? Is it not time we had another look at the whole question of collective responsibility, to try to bring the matter up to date?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend's statement at all. He must be willing to draw a distinction between manifesto commitments and conference decisions from year to year, many of which are totally opposed to the manifesto commitments. It has often been the case—this happened in the 1960s, as my hon. Friend remembers—that there has been a sharp divergence between conference decisions and the policy of the Government. This is always unhappy. We try to take full account of the conference decisions, but they are not binding on an elected Government. As my hon. Friend will be aware, it may not always be the case that a decision of the conference necessarily represents a view of all Labour Party members and voters. I attended a conference at Islington earlier this year, and the clear decision of that conference was not shared by Labour voters when they had the chance to vote in a ballot.

Will the Prime Minister explain the difference between workers' control and industrial democracy?

All these phrases have many definitions. The Institute of Workers' Control has one set of proposals and there have been some very forward-looking proposals from the TUC and CBI. In many of these matters, this country, under successive Governments, has lagged behind some of the best practices on the Continent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade set up the inquiry in order that the House can legislate in the Session after next.

One of the difficulties here is that I understand from the Library that no text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Energy is available, but is the Prime Minister aware that it was reported in the Press, including The Times, a copy of which I have in my hand, that the Secretary of State put forward the view that because of the economic crisis Cabinet Ministers who are members of the NEC should be free to express an independent view? In view of that, does the Prime Minister stick to his original answer to these Questions?

I stick to my original answer. I have seen The Times report. If I am correct, it was reported second-hand, and the newspaper did not actually report the speech. It added up a number of views of its own on the basis of what it assumed might have been said. There is nothing in that speech, as publicly reported or intimated to me by my right hon. Friend, which justifies the criticisms of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker). My right hon. Friend was reported as saying that there must be the fullest possible support for the Government and their decisions. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see the wisdom of that advice.

In view of the fact that we should perhaps attribute 11 Questions on this speech to the unoriginality of the Opposition, is it not a fact that the enormous attention they are paying to the Institute of Workers' Control could be rewarded if they were to go along to the institute, enrol there and listen to the views of genuine working people?

I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We would like to see some members of the Opposition show a greater appreciation of the decision taken by the TUC for the first time last year. Throughout its history, when the Conservative Party is bereft of policies, it always goes in for bogyman hunts. There were the cases of Lloyd George and Aneurin Bevan, but the Conservatives reserved their supreme malice for Winston Churchill when he was not sitting on their Front Bench. This Benn-hunting is a pathetic example of their inability to think of anything constructive to say.

Is the Prime Minister aware that it is frightening, to say the least, that he accepts as Government policy the contents of a speech which he now admits he has not seen or read in full? Does he not accept that those parts of the speech that we have seen, and the remarks by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), are a continuing reminder to this country that the nation is dependent upon a Government who are seriously split on almost every major issue? Will the Prime Minister now shake off the habits of a lifetime and disown the Marxists and Trotskyists in his party?

On the hon. Member's first appearance on the Opposition benches in March 1974 he appeared dressed as a comedian, and he has lived up to that rôle ever since. Nothing more justifies my view on that score than his obsession with this matter. The Press was present at this meeting, and I have studied the local Press. I have given a full account to the House of my interpretation of what is in the Press, and I am sure that if my right hon. Friend had said anything which would have provided pabulum to the Benn-hunters opposite, the Press would have reported it. It did not.

Does the Prime Minister agree that there was an extremely important development in industrial policy last night, when an amendment was passed to the Industry Bill in another place, providing for the disclosure of information to all employees, not just to representatives of the trade unions? Does the Prime Minister agree that since this amendment has been supported by all five parties on the Opposition side of the House this would be the right moment for the Government to drop their wholly undemocratic approach to the question of disclosure, which makes those who are not members of trade unions second-class citizens in law?

It would be wrong and improper for me to comment on amendments which have been passed in another place but which have not been reported back to this House. When they are reported back, as with other amendments that this House receives from time to time, the Government will study them sympathetically. If we think they are of value, we shall recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to join with others who may feel similarly moved to support them. We shall judge these and other amendments on their merits or demerits.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.