asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation (1) what additional measures arising from the recent Commonwealth Education Conference he is taking to widen Great Britain's participation in the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan by making awards for basic professional training unobtainable in the students' own country, undergraduate study at universities and colleges of adult education, and study at technical colleges below post-graduate level;

asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation if he will report on the results of the second Commonwealth education conference which he attended at Delhi; and whether any decisions were taken about associating the United States of America with this work in future.

I have been asked to reply.

On a point of order. I wonder if we might have some explanation of the absence of the Secretary for Technical Co-operation? It is a very long time since the right hon. Gentleman answered Questions and, by my reckoning, he will have gone for four months without answering oral Questions in the House.

I am not sure whether that is a point of order. This is the normal practice when a Minister is away. While my right hon. Friend is away I have a general oversight of his Department and, obviously, because of my time as Secretary of State for the Colonies, I have a deep interest in the sort of work which he is doing. I should have thought that it would be wholly natural that on appointment to that office my right hon. Friend should, following on the conference in Delhi—with which several of the opening Questions are concerned—seek to make closer contacts in the countries which he seeks to serve. I should have thought that the whole House would have welcomed that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that consultations take place with regard to Question No. 1 between the appropriate education authorities and then see that the blueprints of courses, and so on, are published. Concerning Question No. 2, will the right hon. Gentleman consider having discussions with the University Grants Committee, the Ministry of Education and the W.E.A. so that tutors and so on can be carried supernumerary on the staffs of English bodies and can go out without embarrassment to the home departments?

I will certainly consider those matters. The Delhi Conference flows from the Oxford Conference of 1959 and is to lead on, in turn, to a conference in Canada in a year of two's time. The point the hon. Gentleman makes at the end of his first Question was, in fact, one of the two principal offers put forward by our delegation at Delhi.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Delhi Conference ended on 26th January and, while we very much welcome the fact that the new Minister for Technical Co-operation attended it, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel, as Leader of the House, that it really is discourteous that he should not have returned by this time to answer these important Question himself? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last time the Secretary for Technical Operation answered Questions was on 14th November and that the next time we shall have a chance to question him will be in April?

With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I feel that the point is misconceived. When my right hon. Friend took over these immensely important duties, because of the importance of the Delhi Conference he found himself in a part of the world where it is much easier for him to make contact with the sort of people he and his Department exist to serve and which has been set up by this House for that purpose. I should have thought that the House would have welcomed his tour there, and I hope that hon. Members will take as a substitute for him answering questions at the Box my own efforts today.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that tutors and organisers who are seconded will not suffer in their careers and pensions in this country by being seconded, in the same way as some overseas civil servants have suffered in the past with regard to their pensions from some Commonwealth Governments?

That seems to be the key to the whole question of providing efficient technical services overseas. There are a number of consultations going on between my right hon. Friend's Department and, for example, the Ministry of Health and the professions concerned, to ensure that people who spend part of their service overseas—and this is of great benefit not only to the countries concerned but to the persons themselves—should not suffer in their career prospects as a result.

Is not this matter of special importance for the newly independent members of the Commonwealth in relation to what is, I think, being called the dip or the danger of a dip in their economic and cultural level directly after independence? Cannot he go further than he has in telling us what the Secretary for Technical Co-operation may be doing in his prolonged absence to see to it that this gap or dip is effectively filled?

On that particular point, apart from the ordinary follow-up which will succeed the Delhi Conference, the Department of Technical Co-operation is taking steps in discussion with British universities to try to stimulate the flow of British university staff on secondment to universities overseas. This will be of enormous benefit.

asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what plans he has to meet the need for technological and technical manpower, especially in the under-developed countries of the Commonwealth, to which the Oversea Migration Board draws attention in its Seventh Report.

I have been asked to reply.

Unlike hon. Members opposite, I am quite content for my right hon. Friend, with his enormous experience of these matters, to answer Questions about them.

The Report to which my hon. Friend draws attention indicates that not only in the Commonwealth but throughout the world there is a shortage of scientists, doctors, nurses and teachers. The Department of Technical Co-operation is trying, first by recruiting for service overseas, secondly by training people nominated by Governments overseas for this sort of work, and thirdly by liaison with professional bodies on both expansion and recruitment, to see that the need is met.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent Report on the Long-Term Demand for Scientific Manpower said exactly the opposite of What the Report of the Oversea Migration Board says, since it presupposed a continuance of no more than the present rate of emigration of technologists? May we take it that on this point the right hon. Gentleman prefers to plan for an increase rather than to accept the present supply as sufficient?

I do not think that anyone can accept the present supply as sufficient. I was basing myself, as I know my right hon. Friend does, on the Report of the Oversea Migration Board.

asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what is the percentage increase or decrease in sums now being spent on information services overseas compared with ten years ago.

I have been asked to reply.

That is a very satisfactory Answer. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is one of the things in which there should not be economies? Are not ideas worth many battalions?

I agree that this is a very important matter, and we should like to see these services expanded.

asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what action is now being taken to increase the output of television films for teaching English overseas.

I have been asked to reply.

There have already been several delays. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that foreign broadcasting, systems which want to obtain their English teaching films here cannot do so and they are going to the United States instead? Will he look into the matter urgently, and also will he decide who is to be responsible for producing these films, since there are too many organisations in the field?

The responsibility at the moment is with the C.O.I. and the British Council. The subject is important but it is still at the experimental stage. I think that the hon. Gentleman himself said on one occasion that some of the experimental films which have been produced were bad. I think he will agree that it would be unwise to spend money on a major programme before ideas on techniques have been unified. We hope that that point is near.

Is there not an equally great need in these foreign countries where television is growing up not merely to have television films teaching the English language but to have the maximum possible number of television films of all kinds in the English language?

Yes, I agree.

asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation why it is proposed to curtail the American Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

I have been asked to reply.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that cutting this service means depriving over 1,000 American radio stations of material which they have been using for several years now in an output of 1,000 hours of broadcasting of British material a month? Is it not a very stupid little cut?

No, Sir; we regard it as an important cut. The point is that every other channel of communication exists between Britain and the United States, and we are concentrating our broadcasting on areas where channels other than radio are less developed or do not exist. As regards the number of hours of broadcasting, I am told that in the United States there are 6,000 broadcasting stations and their total output cannot be less than about 1 million hours per month. One thousand hours is a very small proportion of that.

asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation how many teachers were recruited from the United Kingdom and the United States of America, respectively, last year for the Anglo-American scheme at Makerere College; and how many teachers from each country are to be recruited this year

I have been asked to reply.

Our contribution last year was really a very poor one. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the scheme has been an outstanding success and is of immense importance? Will he assure the House that adequate steps are now being taken to ensure that, this year, Britain takes a proper share in it.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this scheme is not, as it were, the main scheme. It is supplementary to normal recruitment of British teachers for service in East Africa, and perhaps that more than anything else accounts for the proportion of British and American teachers. I entirely agree that it is a fine scheme. It emerged out of the Princeton Conference in December, 1960, and I think it will be of immense benefit to East Africa.

asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what was the total amount spent by Her Majesty's Government on technical assistance overseas during 1961; and what was the comparable figure for 1960.

I have been asked to reply.

I welcome the fact that the 1961 figure shows an increase on the 1960 figure, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of us think that it should be a great deal larger still? Can he say whether in 1962 these programmes are likely to suffer from current attempts by the Treasury to cut Government expenditure? If there are such attempts, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence in the Cabinet to try to resist them?

I cannot reveal Estimates which have not been presented to the House, but I think that it is reasonable to say, as indeed is implicit from the figures that I have given, that the trend of expenditure in this field anyway is upwards.

Has my right hon. Friend any estimate of the help being given in technical assistance from the private sector of the economy? It must be quite considerable.

I agree that it is substantial, but I do not think that I have any means of estimating it.

While welcoming the increase in technical assistance, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will balance this against the information given by the Colonial Office this morning that Commonwealth Development and Welfare grants last year dropped from over £40 million to £26 million? Will he as the Minister with co-ordinating responsibilities for these matters consider the whole strategy of our aid schemes to make sure that the kind of aid which newly independent Commonwealth countries use to receive through Colonial Development and Welfare funds is not cut off abruptly but is replaced by new forms of aid to new Commonwealth Governments?

Yes, but one cannot take a particular corner of the field. As more colonies become independent the amount of aid that we give to the dependent territories is almost bound to drop. But the amount of aid that we give to the independent territories is going up, and this must be taken into account.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assurances he has had from the Board of Trade that it will give publicity, in its literature to industrialists, to the fact that financial assistance is available from the Development Commission in his Department, so as to encourage the provision of industries in rural areas, and particularly Mid-Wales, as promised on 4th July, 1961.

I am assured by my right hon. Friend that the Board of Trade brings the possibility of obtaining assistance from the Development Fund to the notice of any industrialist who is prepared to set up in business in Mid-Wales once it is satisfied that he cannot go to a development district. In Mid-Wales during the last four years two factories have been built and the building of four more has been approved during the past year.

I do not accept all of that Answer. May I point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Financial Secretary that there has been much publicity of the fact that the Development Commissioners last week refused a grant of £350,000 for a factory in Mid-Wales? What is the reply of the hon. Gentleman to that?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might raise that matter. My answer is that under the 1909 Act the Treasury has no power to override the Development Commissioners.

If that is the case, can the Financial Secretary tell us why the Mid-Wales Industrial Association, which sponsored this application, was not given the reason for its refusal? Does not it make a mockery of the Government's plans if a firm situated in Birmingham which wishes to move out of an overcrowded area into an area which the Government say that they want to help is refused a grant to assist in that aim?

I do not agree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. In answer to the first part, it has not been the habit of the Development Commissioners to give reasons for refusing applications. That has been the consistent practice ever since the 1909 Act was put on the Statute Book.

Will the hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconsider this matter? Does not the hon. Gentleman know that this area in Mid-Wales has been losing young people and still continues to do so? Here is a firm which is ready to establish a new factory in the area and to bring new hope to it, but it is prevented from doing so because no assistance is to be given to it. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is very strong feeling about this in Wales? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconsider the matter immediately?

As I have explained, the Treasury has no power to override the decisions of the Development Commissioners. However, the right hon. Gentleman has done a service by drawing attention to the fact that the problem of Mid-Wales is essentially one, not of unemployment, but of depopulation. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that that matter is much in our minds.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will direct the committee appointed to consider the practical aspects of the introduction of decimal coinage to advise on the extent to which further premises will be required for the Royal Mint, and to consider the desirability of siting such additional premises in Durham.

The cost of any additional capacity which the Royal Mint might require in decimalising the currency will be a factor for the Committee of Inquiry to consider. A decision on the siting of any additional premises if required would, however, he for the Government. I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that Answer. Is he aware that if there is a decision to change over to the principle of decimal coinage the Royal Mint will be inadequate to produce the necessary coins? If it is necessary to find a site elsewhere, may I tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Durham has suitable sites and the men with the traditional skills for the job?

I note the hon. Member's suggestion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that certain European countries trading with Japan are facilitating trade for their domestic manufacturers, by taking over blocked yen as a national liability and crediting their manufacturers with the domestic currency equivalent; and, in view of the damage this is doing to the United Kingdom export trade with Japan, what are his intentions in the matter.

I have no knowledge of this, but I will make further inquiries if the hon. Member can give me details of any case he has in mind.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that British agents in Tokyo of British manufacturers are saying that if a German manufacturer receives an order and is paid in blocked yen the German Government will release German marks to the manufacturer and take over the account of blocked yen? If this is the case, it is a serious detriment to our export trade. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make further inquiries of our commercial attaché in Tokyo about this matter?

We have made extensive inquiries in Tokyo through our Embassy and in Bonn through our Embassy, through the Japanese Ministry for Foreign Affairs and of the German authorities. If my hon. Friend will give me some evidence of what he alleges, I can take the matter further.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the extent of the coastal area owned by the Crown Estate Commissioners which has been disposed of by them in the past five years; what was the total sum received; what is the method of valuation adopted; and what rights of first refusal are given to public authorities to purchase such property in their area.

During the five years to 31st October last, there were ninety-eight sales of foreshore or sea or river bed under the management of the Crown Estate Commissioners, involving a total area of 275 acres and a total consideration of £37,242. Valuations are made by the district valuer on the basis of instructions settled in consultation between the Crown Estate Commissioners and the Government. The practice of the Commissioners is only to sell foreshore or sea bed where it is to be occupied by permanent works, or where an adjustment of boundaries is required. The question of offering the sale of tidal areas to public authorities would arise only where works were to be carried out by them. Sixty-nine of the ninety-eight sales were to local authorities, Government Departments or other statutory bodies.

Does not the Financial Secretary agree that if foreshore owned by the Crown is to be sold it is preferable that it should be sold for public enjoyment and should be in public ownership rather than that it should be sold to private interests?

Nationalisation.

Yes, nationalisation. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is anachronistic in 1962 to have privately-owned foreshore from which members of the public are excluded?

I would rather not get involved in controversy on doctrines, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Commissioners are anxious that local authorities should exercise local supervision and control of the foreshore where appropriate. It is the policy of the Commissioners to encourage local authorities to take regulating leases of foreshore adjacent to their areas.

Is it not advisable that some public authority, be it the Crown Estate Commissioners or anyone else, should accept and discharge responsibility for keeping the foreshore clean? It gets into a sickening mess from oil, insects and the like and no one deals with it.

The Treasury has a very wide range of responsibilities, but keeping the foreshore clean hardly comes within its purview.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in earnings during 1961; and what was the corresponding increase in productivity.

In the first nine months of 1961, average earnings per head were 7 per cent. higher than during the corresponding period of 1960. Between the same two periods output per head rose by 1¼ per cent.

In view of those figures, and in view of my right hon. and learned Friend's estimate that we can afford an increase in earnings this year of only 2 to 2½ per cent., will he refer these figures to Lord Robens and to Dr. Beeching?

I think that everyone is aware of these figures. Of course it is extremely important that we should try to put up output by increasing efficiency and by the use of existing capacity. At the same time, I think that these figures show a necessity for restraint over personal incomes.

Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer talk about putting up output when it has been his deliberate policy since last July to damp it down? How can he expect wage-earners to be satisfied with statements of that sort when they know that the Government are keeping down output and propose to have an increase in output this year of only 2½ per cent.? Is it not time that the Government made way for people who are ready to stimulate production in this country?

The Government have sought to reduce neither fixed investments nor exports. If under the hon. Gentleman's policies one simply increases demand at home which will divert attention from exporting and attract further imports, the situation will become very much worse.

Since exports are the real key to our economic situation, can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us the increase in exports in the same period?

Not without notice.

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot give us the figures, why does he tell us that it is so important to do what he said earlier? Has not he read the Treasury bulletins which show that the output of exports has gone down since he introduced his measures last year. Is not this a thoroughly unsatisfactory economic policy of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman should get rid as soon as he can?

The Question of my hon. Friend referred to the first nine months of last year. I have not the precise figure, but I think that what the hon. Gentleman says is wrong.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new plans resulted from his discussions at Bonn on 23rd and 24th March, 1961, for a more rapid payment of the German post-war debt of £67,500,000.

Repayment of the outstanding sum of £87½ million^* was made in full on 28th April, 1961.

Does that £87½ million include interest on the original loan?

I think no interest was payable on the original loan.

Mr. Stratton Mills. Mr. Rankin. Mr. William Hamilton.

Question No. 19.

I am sorry. On a point of order. May I not ask Question No. 18, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Rankin. Question No. 18.

Further to that point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to go to sleep, miss his Question and then be allowed to contract in in retrospect? Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member was snoring so loudly that we could not even hear you call the further Question?

I have heard no point of order. Owing to something which was happening around me, the hon. Member was occluded from me, otherwise I should have seen his presence. Mr. Rankin. Question No. 18.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring the salaries paid in the lecturer grade of universities into parity with those paid in the Civil Service principal grade.

I do not think that a pay link of this kind between these grades in quite different careers would be appropriate.

Surely, the hon. Gentleman knows that the claim was submitted at the request of the University Grants Committee and deferred by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In view of the fact that the pay pause has now to be stopped, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this long-deferred claim for parity might have the attention of the Chancellor and a declaration with regard to his intentions?

I am well aware of the desirability of an early announcement and it will be made as soon as possible.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to enable the terms of the Civil List to be reviewed periodically with a view to amending legislation in order to ensure that such terms take cognizance of changed circumstances.

No, Sir.

Why not?

I advise the hon. Member to read the speeches by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary on 9th and 15th July, 1952. They contain all the arguments on these matters.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that some beneficiaries from the Civil List are anxious—indeed, they have expressed their willingness—to break away from the shackles of this gold-plated National Assistance Board? In those circumstances, could we not have a debate on these things so that we might lessen the impact of this cost on the Treasury, particularly at this time, when everybody else is asked to economise?

I advise the hon. Member to take my advice and refresh his memory on the debates that took place on the Civil List Bill in 1952. They were much better debates than the sort of debates that the hon. Member has in mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the loss of revenue in the current year, and in the ensuing full year, in respect of his announcement to remove grass cutters and lawn mowers from Purchase Tax; and what compensatory revenue benefits will derive in equivalent financial years from the imposition, also announced by him recently, of Purchase Tax on fireworks and why such Purchase Tax action was taken simultaneously for fireworks, grass cutters and lawn mowers.

Because the tax is collected in arrear, receipts in the current financial year will not be affected. For a full year the figures will be about £1¼ million for mowers and between £1½ and £1¾ million for fireworks. Both trades are seasonal and this was the opportune time for the changes.

On fireworks, can my hon. Friend say whether there is to be an exemption for rockets used by ships in distress at sea or by lighthouses? On the general point, can he tell the House whether this spate of Purchase Tax changes so near to the Budget presages or denies a general reform of the Purchase Tax in April next?

In reply to the second half of that supplementary question, I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement. In reply to the first part, I suggest that my hon. Friend put down a Question or write to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary or myself about it.

In this important context, did my hon. Friend remember the matter of Very lights as well as rockets?

I am sure that all these relevant matters were borne in mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that the claims of those living on small fixed incomes to a share in the national prosperity will not be overlooked in the forthcoming Budget.

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the position of those living on small fixed incomes will be very much in my mind when I am considering the next Budget.

After that quite sympathetic reply, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he has read the speech of the retiring Chairman of Barclays Bank, in which he said that the policy of Her Majesty's Government had not been very favourable to those living on small fixed incomes? Will my right hon. and learned Friend take that speech into consideration and do the utmost he can to redeem the lack of policy which was so detrimental to those people?

I have certainly read the speech of the Chairman of Barclays Bank. I have also read carefully the letter which my hon. Friend wrote to me and I will take all those matters into consideration.

Will the Chancellor examine the allegation that during the last six years the burden of taxation has been transferred from the shoulders of people earning over £20 a week to those on small fixed incomes and that the proportion in tax as between the two has varied very much against those earning and living on small fixed incomes?

I do not believe that to be the case, but I will certainly examine the hon. Member's proposition.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet completed his examination of the payment of agricultural grants and subsidies; and if he will make a statement.

The agricultural grants and subsidies will come under examination at the annual Farm Price Review this month, and the Government's decisions with regard to them will not be taken and made known until after that review has been held.

Can the Chancellor say whether, in the course of that review, account will be taken of the recent Report from the Estimates Committee which asserts that the Treasury has no control whatever over either the total amount of these subsidies or the directions in which they are applied? In view of the fact that there is widespread feeling amongst farmers and consumers, and, indeed, butchers, that they do not have these incomes, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a specific undertaking that in the course of his investigations he will tell us where the money is going?

The hon. Member is raising issues far wider than his Question. The time when these matters are taken into account is during the course of the Price Review. The time to debate them is when the Government's decisions on the Price Review are announced.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new arrangements he has made for financial aid to the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden.

Discussions have taken place between Covent Garden, the Arts Council and the Treasury about arrangements for determining the Covent Garden grant following the expiry in March, 1962, of the current three-year agreement based on 43 per cent. of approved expenditure subject to a limit of £500,000. The grant will in future be based not on approved expenditure but on reckonable receipts in respect of Covent Garden's home and overseas operations. The Treasury has also agreed to provide funds to complete the liquidation of Covent Garden's accumulated bank overdraft at 31st March, 1959, and to finance urgent and essential capital works at the Opera House.

Whilst we all appreciate and welcome the increased aid that is being given to Covent Garden, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman realises that occasionally we ask Questions about increased aid being given to the arts and we are told, as in this case, that it is specific aid for a definite purpose, whereas on other occasions we are told that it is general aid to be applied as the Arts Council wishes? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the time has arrived for a reconsideration and re-examination of the Arts Council and the way in which it spends its money, in view of the large increase which has occurred during the last few years?

I am glad that the hon. Member recognises the attention which the Government have paid to the arts. If on a private Member's day or some other appropriate time the hon. Member likes to debate the matter, it would be a good thing for the House as a whole.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of official warnings that Great Britain's entry into the Common Market would lead to increases in the cost of living, he will give an assurance that he will not seek to extend the operation of the pay pause beyond the date of such entry.

In view of the decision on the future of the pay pause announced last week, I do not think that this question now arises.

Oh, yes it does. Would the Chancellor not agree that the 2 to 2½ per cent. mentioned in the White Paper—which has already been made nonsense of by Dr. Beeching's latest offer, inadequate though that is—is just an extension of the pay pause? Is it not wage restraint to limit increases to 2 or 2½ per cent. and is this not, therefore, simply another form of the pay pause? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman guarantee that, if and when we go into the Common Market, the cost of living will not go up by more than 2½ per cent.?

The hon. Member's Question related to the pay pause and I gathered that he was referring to the first phase. As to future phases, I should have thought it perfectly obvious that there must be restraint over personal incomes for a very long time.

Does the Chancellor not remember that in his White Paper he says that cost-of-living increases are not to be taken as a factor in the future determination of wage claims? Therefore, can he tell us, if there is a rise in food prices on going into the Common Market, whether compensation will or will not be given to wage earners for that increase?

I was dealing in the White Paper with 1962. What is perfectly clear is that if people pay themselves more than is being currently earned there will be inflation and a diminution of the real value of their wages.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if and when we go into the Common Market and have to meet the full blast of competition from Germany, France and Italy, to mention only three countries, that will be just the very time to keep a restraining hand on wages and incomes?

Are we to take it from the way that the Chancellor has evaded the questions put to him that the standard of living of people in this country is to be worsened if there is an increase in food prices on our going into the Common Market?

The hon. Member has no business to draw any such deduction. What I am saying is that it is the real value of wages that matters, their purchasing power, and if increases go on at the kind of rate at which they have been going on the real value of wages diminishes.

Yes, but does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the White Paper states specifically that a rise in the cost of living in future, during the so-called interim period, is not to be taken as a reason for an increase in wages? Does it not follow, therefore, that if there is a rise in the cost of living and no increase in wages, the workers concerned will suffer a reduction in their living standards? Is this what the Chancellor means?

I am determined, for my part, to try to break the vicious circle, because if increases in nominal wages are given on the ground of increases in the cost of living, the value of those nominal wages will decrease. We must have increases in personal incomes measuring up to increases of output in order to get stability.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, during his recent visit, was able to negotiate with the German Government an agreement under which they will pay their nationals who work for the British Forces.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent visit to Bonn of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Negotiations are still continuing and I would prefer to defer comment until they have been concluded.

In view of the fact that £5,600,000 is provided in the current Army Estimates for this kind of civilian service in Germany, may I ask whether the Chancellor can say that the negotiations will be comprehended within that sum or whether even more than that sum of money is being spent on civilian work in Germany in relation to the Army? Does not the Chancellor think it absurd that we should be spending millions of pounds to maintain employment in Germany when we still have 60,000 unemployed in Scotland?

Yes, but the cost in Germany is very much more than what the hon. Member has said. It is one of the factors very much taken into account in the discussions.

Why not tell the German Government that if they want British Forces to stay there they must pay the cost or alternatively let us pack up and go? Since almost every Minister of importance has now been to Bonn on one of these cadging expeditions without securing any material result, is the Chancellor not considering sending a delegation of Tory back-benchers who might be able to grovel with much better success?

These negotiations are still continuing and it is much better not to make unhelpful comments.