asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what concessions are made to members of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom to purchase, free of Purchase Tax or import duties, cars of British or foreign origin.

A diplomat with full diplomatic privilege does not at any time bear revenue charges on a car, whether British or of foreign manufacture, bought for his personal use. Other members of missions import their cars free of such charges at their first arrival, on appointment here. The charges become payable on any cars which are disposed of in this country.

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that it is rather silly that members of the Diplomatic Corps should be able to import a car without Purchase Tax or other duties, whereas, if they buy one here, before taking it away they have to pay the tax and get a refund and so have an additional inconvenience?

I will consider my hon. Friend's point, but I think that what has been the practice up to now is not really too bad a one.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the arrangements for financing export contracts as announced by him will enable foreign ship owners to obtain credit for building ships in this country on terms which entail preferential treatment to the disadvantage of British ship owners.

No, Sir. The position of the British ship owner is not worsened by the new arrangements and I do not believe that foreign owners in general will be at an advantage.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Governments of other countries are finding a large number of ways of financially assisting shipbuilders and ship owners? Will he make inquiries into this practice and try to follow the example of other nations?

I certainly will do that, and I will also consider any evidence which my hon. and gallant Friend has to give me. The British owner enjoys the 40 per cent. investment allowance, which is a substantial assistance, but the scheme about which my hon. and gallant Friend is asking relates to exports.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise by now that this 40 per cent. investment allowance applies only when profits are earned, and that shipping companies which do not make profits do not derive any advantage from it?

That is true over a temporary period, but not over a term of years.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether credit at 5½ per cent. fixed, in accordance with the scheme he announced on 23rd January, 1962, will be available for British ship owners building in British shipyards.

No, Sir.

May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he is aware that the setting up of this scheme is of great benefit to exports; that British ships also earn a very large amount of foreign currency which could be regarded as an export; and that what he is doing is discriminating against British shipping to the advantage of foreign-owned shipping? Will he go back to the City and try to arrange terms for our own ship owners as advantageous as those for foreign ship owners?

My hon. Friend will have heard the reply I made earlier to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) about this matter. This was a scheme for exports and I am glad that it has been accepted as being of benefit. I am very ready to examine any information about how foreign ship owners could be in a better position than British ship owners. I remind my hon. Friend of what I said about investment allowance.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the proposal made by his hon. Friend would stimulate British shipbuilding, because many ship owners would be very glad to scrap some old vessels and have new ones built, if they could find the necessary credit, and this proposal would assist them?

I am aware of that fact, but the scheme about which I have been questioned was designed to encourage exports and was, I think, of benefit.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to make in the Government's economic policies, in view of the rise in unemployment recently.

None, Sir. The Government are taking active measures to assist industry to move to areas of high unemployment and will continue to do so.

Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least acknowledge that an increase of over 71,000 in the number of registered unemployed in a month is a rather alarming figure? Will he also acknowlelge that this is due in the main to the policy that he himself has been following since last July?

I think that it is also necessary to remember that on the last date for which the figures are available 154,000 more people were in employ ment than in the corresponding period last year. As regards trying to take industry to places where there are high levels of unemployment, we are spending in the current financial year about £34 million on that, and I shall be surprised if the bill next year is any less.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recollect that almost fifteen years ago, when the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was a Minister, there were million unemployed?

That is true, but I think that that was during a slightly abnormal period.

In view of that statement, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make inquiries to ascertain the truth of it and deny the contention if the Government documents in his possession indicate that there is no truth whatever in the statement?

I did my best to help the right hon. Gentleman by saying that the period to which I thought my hon. Friend was referring was a rather abnormal one.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Government order can now be expected by Blyth shipyard in view of the scheduling of the town as a development district under the Local Employment Act.

When tenders for Government contracts are of equal merit, preference is given to firms in areas listed as development districts. Firms at Blyth will thus qualify for preference under this scheme.

Is not the Minister aware that, while it is important to direct new industries to a development district, it is equally important to keep the industries in the area going? While we are grateful to him for his Answer, my I point out that this is a shipyard that is adapting itself both in management and men to modern conditions?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that among the Supplementary Estimates recently presented to Parliament was one for nearly £4 million under the Local Employment Act.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what bodies he has regular meetings with the worker and management representatives of industry, including the nationalised industries, and agriculture.

I have regular meetings with the representatives of employers and trade unions and the nationalised industries on the National Production Advisory Council on Industry.

Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the interests of efficiency and economy, all such meetings should be coordinated, and will he do his best, with the co-operation of his Ministerial colleagues, to see that in future all such meetings are convened by him and held under the aegis of the N.E.D.C.?

I will consider the point which my hon. Friend has put. I am not sure that it will be acceptable to all my Ministerial colleagues. Nevertheless, I agree with him, and I hope that I shall very soon be able to make a statement on the position of some of these bodies when we have the N.E.D.C. set up.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage rise in wages, salaries and dividends, respectively, over the past ten years.

Between 1950 and 1960 it is estimated that total wages rose by 87 per cent., total salaries by 119 per cent. and gross ordinary dividends by 145 per cent. Total company profits rose by 70 per cent. in this period.

Provisional figures for the first nine months of 1961 suggest that wages and salaries in that period were altogether about 8·1 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period of 1960, while the level of gross ordinary dividends rose by about 12 per cent. Company profits fell by 7 per cent. in this period.

In view of the figures for the last ten years, which the Chancellor has given, is it not really absurd to suggest that rising wages have been the main cause of inflation? Is it not even more indefensible to try to hold down wage rises to 2½ per cent. while not effectively imposing any such restraint on a great many salaries and incomes?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has completely disregarded one very important fact, that between 1950 and 1960 £10,000 million of profits were ploughed back into industry and in addition £1,500 million of new capital was raised. In fact, gross dividends went up by £600 million. If that is considered in relation to the £10,000 million ploughed back and the £1,500 million of new capital raised, I think one gets the rise in dividends in much better proportion.

It is just because I realise these facts that I put the Question in terms of dividends and not of profits.

But surely dividends are relevant. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be savings without any return on the savings at all when these are company savings?

If I am asked the question, I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he is not aware that obviously the fairest comparison is between wages, salaries and dividends.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the size of the labour force comes into account? The labour force has gone up by 8 per cent. and it is a relevant factor. The amount of capital on which dividends are paid is also a relevant factor.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in 1960 wages and salaries totalled £13,690 million and dividends on ordinary shares only £986 million?

Gross dividends were about 7 per cent. of wages and salaries.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman complaining that there are too many workers now?

I was really complaining that hon. Members opposite, who are supposed to encourage savings and who want profits ploughed back, do not seem to be prepared to agree that these profits deserve some remuneration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take following the two recent judicial interpretations of Section 15 of the Trustee Investments Act, in the cases of in re Kolb's Will Trusts and in re Porritt's Will Trusts on the subject of investment, to clarify the position.

I understand that an appeal is being made in one of these cases. It would, therefore, be premature for me to comment.

Does not the Chancellor consider that the judgment of the judges in both these cases, in spite of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, have taken a rather limited view of the Variation of Trusts Act, 1958, despite the assurance given in Committee on the Trustees Investment Bill by the former Solicitor-General?

I know that a great deal of concern is felt about this matter. I think that at the present time it would be premature for me to comment, as I have said.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind when he considers this case that this is a point on which the Government twice asserted that the Chancery judges had been consulted and that it appeared in the final stages of the Committee proceedings they had not been consulted?

I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we shall take into account what was said by the Government during the debate and anything said on the judgments.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give tax relief to working and professional people who incur considerable cost in going to and from work.

No, Sir.

Do I understand that the Chancellor will not give consideration to this very important question when in fact there are closures of pits in many areas throughout the land and people have to travel considerable distances to their work? I can assure him that in my constituency the majority of people have to incur expenses of up to and sometimes over £1 a week. If he seeks to be fair and equitable in taxation he must give serious consideration to expenses incurred by working people travelling to and from their work.

The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Royal Commission on Taxation considered this question and came down decisively in favour of the view that such an allowance would not in general be justified, and the Government feel that that argument stands.

Whatever dusty answer may be given on this, is the Financial Secretary aware that there is growing resentment at the treatment of P.A.Y.E. workers in matters of expenses in comparison with those assessed under Schedule D? Will he take steps to ask his right hon. and learned Friend to equalise conditions under which expenses are granted between Schedule D and P.A.Y.E. taxpayers?

The hon. Gentleman is raising a matter of considerable importance which ranges rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper. We shall no doubt have an opportunity of discussing the point raised by the hon. Gentleman at an appropriate time.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that this creates very great difficulty in industrial areas where there is new housing and people have to go seven or eight miles out of the centre of the city. In many instances, the cost of transport is 5s. or 6s. a week, and this makes it difficult to persuade people to go into the new houses. The Chancellor knows perfectly well that this is so on Merseyside. Would it not be wise to look at this position to see if means could not be found to ease the situation?

The hon. Lady is perfectly right in saying that the tax system must be seen to be fair. It would be quite impracticable to devise a relief as suggested in the Question which would be both fair and workable.

Mr. Hamilton, Question No. 10.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

On a point of order—

There can be no further point of order to a notice which was itself given late.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to give notice that a matter is to be raised on the Adjournment which inescapably must involve new legislation?

It is perfectly in order to give notice. I will consider whether the matter is in order on the Adjournment when it arises and not now.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his recently announced policy of seeking to restrain rises in personal incomes, he will now rescind the proposed concession to Surtax payers.

No, Sir.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how on earth he expects organised workers to understand either the logic or the justice of his appeal to them to restrain their incomes when at the same time he is giving out £83 million to the wealthiest section of the community?

I have altered the basis of assessment. In that case there had been a pause of something like forty years since the time 'it was originally introduced. I did it for economic reasons, because I wanted to put a certain section of the community on a tax basis comparable with that of our competitors. I have seen the posters: "Wages and Salaries Frozen. £80 million for the Surtax payers." In fact, between April, 1961, and January, 1963, when this relief comes into effect, I think that wages and salaries will have gone up by about ten times that amount.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recollect that this Surtax concession was given with the express hope that it would provide an incentive to exporters? Will he give an undertaking that if exports do not increase to the extent that he visualised when the concession was first introduced it will be withdrawn?

Certainly not. The purpose of the concession was to put a certain important section of the community on a basis comparable with that of our competitors overseas.

But as the right hon. and learned Gentleman also said that one purpose of the concession was to obtain an increase in production, and as production has since fallen, will not he reconsider the concession?

Certainly not. I am absolutely convinced that, in the long term, what I have done is right.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the large sums demanded by ground landlords for the renewal of leases on dwelling houses; and, in view of the fact that these landlords have not contributed towards increases in the value of the land, if he will take steps to examine the sums as a source of revenue.

I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

Is the Minister aware that two cases were brought to my attention recently, first, of a man who paid £3 a year ground rent, whose lease still has fourteen years to go, and who is being asked to pay £550 for its renewal, and, secondly, of a man who is being asked to pay £350 plus £20 a year for the renewal of the ground lease? If the Minister is prepared to impose this wage freeze for the workers, why should he not adopt a rent freeze for these landlords? Is not he aware that, in the eyes of the workers, whatever he may say in answer to my question will not justify the robbery that is going on in this respect?

The hon. Member, who always expresses himself so felicitously, has not left me much to say in reply, but I will remind him that if these land lords are trading in real property these premiums constitute trade receipts, and enter into the computation of taxable profits.

asked the Chancellor of the Exechequer whether he will arrange to have attendances and minutes of the National Economic Development Council published; and if he will ensure, in the interests of encouraging national productivity, that members shall only be paid for actual attendances on an expense basis for expenses actually incurred.

The National Economic Development Council has not yet met. It will be for the Council to decide to what extent it will make its proceedings and recommendations public.

With regard to possible allowances for expenses, I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.

Is the Minister aware that I am not asking what the Council will decide to do? I am asking whether the Chancellor will take some action to encourage industry generally by suggesting that the minutes of attendance of this Council should be published. As all those people who have been announced as members of the Council are receiving good salaries and expenses, is it not right that they should claim only for the actual expenses incurred, and should not make money out of their service on the Council?

I have said that I will consider the hon. Member's point. I have not the slightest reason to think that any member of this Council, whether he represents a trade union or otherwise, will want to make money out of his attendance.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Committee set up to investigate the theft of the portrait by Goya will report.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee investigating the theft of the Goya portrait from the National Gallery has now reported; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that the Committee has finished its inquiries, and that the Government may now expect to receive its Report this week.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is public concern about the administration of the National Gallery? Will he, therefore, publish this Report as a White Paper when he receives it?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that from the nature of the matters investigated it will be necessary to consider what is in the Report before deciding whether or not to publish it.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether they have found the picture?

Security has apparently improved, and no further pictures have been stolen since the Goya disappeared, but can the Chancellor explain how it is that only the other day, in the House of Lords, a Government spokesman said that it would be a month or two before the Report would be published, or would reach the Government, whereas today the announcement is made that the Report is in the hands of the Government? There seems to be a lack of coordination somewhere, which probably reflects itself in the security arrangements generally.

The hon. Member should be satisfied with my reply, anyway.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give figures to show how United Kingdom overseas investment compares with what it was before the last war.

It is not possible to make this comparison, because the only available figures relating to pre-war investment overseas are certain unofficial and incomplete estimates prepared on a different basis from current official estimates.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the increase of unemployment in the North-East, he will ask the National Economic Development Council to consider as an urgent priority the inflationary influences of the labour drift southwards and the need for new measures to promote industrial growth where resources are under-employed.

I agree that the full use of our resources is the kind of issue which might very well engage the Council's attention.

I am thankful for that half-answer. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman answered Question No. 3 he stated that £34 million had been spent under the Local Employment Act. Will he state how much of that was spent in the North-East, and agree that this is far too little?

I will certainly state the amount when I know it, if the hon. Member will give notice of that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that personal incomes for the first nine months in 1961 increased by 7 per cent. whereas output increases only by 11 per cent., what was the increase or decrease in exports; to what extent exports were held back by higher prices caused by higher incomes; if he will take further steps to publicise the dangers to exports caused by higher prices: and if he will make a statement.

Over the first nine months of 1961 exports rose by £99 million, or about 3½ per cent. I have no doubt that exports were to some extent held back by higher prices, but that is very difficult to quantify. A continuation of the rise in prices and costs, which is simply another aspect of the inflation of personal incomes, would be very damaging to our export prospects. I have frequently drawn attention to the importance of keeping down the cost of exports so as to allow exporters to take full advantage of the expanding markets open to them. This is indeed one of the principle objects of the Government's incomes policy.

If exports increased by only 3½ per cent. whereas personal, incomes rose by 7 per cent., is not that going to make the position of exporters a great deal more difficult? What new steps will my right hon. and learned Friend take to convince the nation that unless we export more we may have 1 million people unemployed before long?

What my hon. Friend says is true, and I hope that every hon. Member will co-operate in convincing public opinion in this country of the facts as my hon. Friend has stated them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what appropriate corrective action he proposes to take in accordance with paragraph 14, dealing with profits and dividends, of the White Paper on Incomes Policy, in view of the excessive increase in dividends from 1958 to 1961, compared with increases in hourly wage rates.

In view of the fall in profits, from which dividends are paid, in 1961, I do not think there is any need for corrective action at the present time.

Has not the Chancellor looked up the figures, which show that dividends increased four times as quickly as wages during those years? Does not he regard that as excessive, whatever the rate of profits paid out? Does not he realise that until he takes some action along these lines his incomes policy will be regarded as a mockery by the ordinary people?

People who say that should also point out the fact that I mentioned earlier, concerning the ploughing back of profits and the raising of new capital. It also depends on the period from which one takes the figures. Comparing 1938 with 1961 one finds an enormously greater increase in earnings than in dividends. Between 1946 and 1961 the figures are about the same. But the statistics that we have do not take into account the factor that I have mentioned, which is of great importance, and I hope that the hon. Member will help me in explaining it to the people.

Is the Chancellor aware that I shall certainly assist to make the economic facts of this country known during the next few months? Whether he will agree with my analysis I am not so sure. It is that he has laid down, as a condition for increases in pay, that people must undertake more arduous or onerous work. What is it he is asking the shareholders to undertake in order to justify this excessive increase in dividends?

It is quite clear from the fall in profits that the figures for dividends will correspond, because profits are the fount of dividends. As the statistics that I gave earlier show, the fall in profits has been very substantial.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend subsection (1) of Section 212 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, so as to bring the occupation centres for the training of mentally handicapped children within the meaning of educational establishment and thus remove the prevailing anomaly.

I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion, but I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

During his consideration of this and other matters, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that there is a challenge and an anomaly here that causes some concern to the Inland Revenue authorities, in that a centre for handicapped children functions in almost identically the same way as an educational institute? Is he, therefore, prepared to give this matter serious consideration?

This, along with many other matters, will be considered. In general it is true that these training centres do not satisfy the statutory test, but this is one of many matters which my right hon. and learned Friend will be looking into.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider a new system for the payment of pensions which are the direct financial liability of Her Majesty's Government, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Tynemouth; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that the hon. Lady has in mind a suggestion that all public service pensions, no matter when awarded, should be raised to the level of those currently being awarded for similar service. Her Majesty's Government, like all previous Governments, are unable to accept such a fundamental and costly change in the principles governing public service pensions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I was referring to the creative plan of Air Marshal Sir Gerald Gibbs, who has written to my right hon. and learned Friend and had a very courteous, if non-committal, reply not embodying what my hon. Friend has said? When we are having new ideas about pay, salaries and production, may I ask my hon. Friend why, at some time or other, we should not examine the position of those who have already served their country well? Or do we always have to discard those who have served and look to those who may serve us? Can my hon. Friend answer that?

Yes, certainly. In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I do not think that it would be very courteous were my right hon. and learned Friend to answer correspondence in the style of a Parliamentary Answer. Regarding the second part, one has to remember that it would cost as much as £70 million in the first year—

That is not right.

It is correct. We are here considering the possibility of a very big change in policy. I make no apology for saying that my right hon. and learned Friend, like all his predecessors, feels that this would be too fundamental and costly a change to make.

They are all dyed-in-the-wool.

Could not the £70 million be found if the Chancellor cancelled the Surtax concession?

Unless we have a thrusting and competitive economy I do not consider, that we shall be serving the interests of the pensioners themselves. I think it is great nonsense to suppose that we should have the level of pensions that we wish unless there is sufficient scope for initiative in the tax system.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many salaried persons are included in the category of those who received a total of £5,060 million in 1960; whether this number includes directors who receive yearly or part-time fees; what part of the total sum is comprised by such fees; and if he will in future publish in his monthly digest of statistics details showing the average number of people receiving salaries of up to £2,000 per annum, between £2,000 and £5,000 per annum, and between £5,000 and £10,000 per annum, respectively, together with the totals of annual salaries for each group.

Precise figures of the division of the total labour force between wage earners and salary earners are not availably but it is estimated that the total number of salary earners in 1960 was about 6¾million, including directors. Directors' fees are in general included in the figures of earnings taxed under P.A.Y.E., from which the estimates of wages and salaries are derived, but are not separately identified. It is estimated, however, that the total of such fees included in the figure for salaries paid in 1960 was of the order of £200 million. So far as publication of numbers of salary earners in various ranges of income is concerned, I would draw the hon. Member's attention to table 67 in the 104th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. This table shows total Schedule E incomes classified by sex and by range of remuneration, but separate figures for wages and salaries are not available. This information can only be obtained annually, with a considerable time lag, and would not be appropriate for publication in the Monthly Digest of Statistics.

I am very thankful for the Minister's reply. At the same time I think the object of the Question itself should be taken notice of and implemented. We have all the possible in formation relative to wages. Why cannot we get the same information relative to other personal affairs?

I ask the hon. Gentleman to study my original Answer again. I apologise for its length, but it was a long Question and one could not use the traditional remark—" as the Answer contains a number of figures…" I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find the Answer informative.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what particular factors resulted in a 61 per cent. rise in total salaries between 1954 and 1960 compared with a 40 per cent. rise in total wages over the same period.

The faster rise in total salaries than in total wages can be attributed mainly to the simple fact that over this period the number of salary earners rose much faster than the number of wage earners.

Does not the Minister think that, when we know the number of these people, it should not be difficult to obtain the number who get that money? Therefore, is not it necessary that we should have as much information on this subject as we have about wages? I hope we shall do something in this matter.

I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Member, but I understood the original Question and Answer better than his supplementary question. If the hon. Member wishes further information on the whole subject, may I suggest that he looks at the very good analysis in the book by Butler and Rose on the last General Election?

Can the Financial Secretary say what were the percentage rises in the number of salary earners and wage earners respectively?

Between 1954 and 1960 the number of salary earners increased by about 22 per cent. and wage earners by about 1 per cent.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet able to publish the Government's proposals in the matter of the salaries of university teachers.

I would refer my hon. Friend to previous replies on this matter to which I have at present nothing to add.

I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that that is a very disappointing reply. Is he aware that a long time has now elapsed since a statement was first promised? May I ask, first, whether he would not agree that as soon as the pay pause permits, a major adjustment of these salaries is necessary so that the top rewards in the profession are more comparable to the top rewards in comparable professions? Secondly, will he say whether backdating will apply either initially or as a principle, and, thirdly, whether some kind of negotiating machinery comparable to Burnham can now be introduced?

I cannot anticipate any announcement, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the need for an early announcement on this subject. Regarding the last part of the supplementary question, my information is that the arrangements, given the special circumstances of academic employment, are generally acceptable.

What about backdating?

I cannot answer any further.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of Great Britain's continuing balance of trade difficulties he will take fiscal steps to encourage the long-term development of non-ferrous metal mining in Great Britain.

My right hon. Friend has noted the hon. and learned Member's suggestion, but after full consideration last year he has reached the conclusion that he could not justify giving special tax reliefs for this purpose. I am afraid that our view on the matter remains unchanged.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the fluctuation in the price of tin, for example, and the supply of tin, makes nonsense of the British policy. When we do not have a steady long-term policy with relation to this and other matters, would not it be better for the national interest if this were planned over a period?

I know the sincere feelings held by hon. Members on both sides of the House about this. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the debates on the Finance Bill last year. My right hon. and learned Friend came to his conclusion after a great deal of thought, and he does not feel that he can change his mind now.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the inventory value of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Limited, at the latest convenient date; what steps the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency has now taken to prepare for denationalisation; and, having regard to the undertaking of the Government to denationalise the rump of the State-owned steel industry before the next General Election and the decline in value of steel equities on the London Stock Exchange, whether he will now make a statement concerning early denationalisation of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Limited.

The value of the company's net assets on 30th September, 1961, the date of the last balance sheet, was £154·7 million. The Government's policy on the remaining stages of steel denationalisation is well known; but it would be contrary to practice for me to enter into discussion about possible future sales by the Agency.

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the date of the next General Election is now getting very close—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and the time to complete this denationalisation operation is, therefore, quite short? Would not he feel with me very keenly if we were to face the electorate with a charge being made against us of a broken pledge?

Oh.

I think the result of the next General Election will not greatly affect this issue. With regard to the question which my hon. Friend has asked, I have nothing to add to what has been said before.

Would not the Chancellor accept the fact that any proposal for denationalising Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Limited, would be a wanton act of pillage? Would he not give a guarantee that he will act in this matter in the national interest and not in the interests of the private steel masters who subscribe to Conservative Party funds?

I do not accept the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. I have every intention of acting is the national interest.

As at least £70 million of new public money has been invested in Llanwern, surely the time has come for the Government to reconsider their policy and to repeal this Act? How can the Chancellor justify selling to private interests and private enterprise assets to which they have subscribed nothing and contributed nothing and from which, if the hon. Member has his way, they will draw all the benefit?

I do not agree at all with what the hon. Member says.

Will the Chancellor give an assurance to the House that there will be no announcement of the sale of R.T.B. while the House is in recess, as in the case of S. G. Brown & Company, Limited, Llanelly Steel and Staveley Iron?

I will consider that point.

If the Chancellor says that £70 million of public money has not been lent to Richard Thomas and Baldwins, will he say what the figure is because, according to our information, at least £70 million was lent over the last two years?

If the hon. Member puts down a Question about the exact amount I will try to answer it

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the statement in Command Paper No. 1626, Incomes Policy: The Next Step. that Her Majesty's Government's policy is to secure faster economic growth, if he will study economic measures adopted towards this end by other industrial countries, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Certainly.

Does the Chancellor recollect that when we were fellow travellers with the Prime Minister in Moscow the Prime Minister made a remarkable speech in which he said that industrial progress in the U.S.S.R. was unparalleled in history? May we take it that he will not rule out a study of economic planning as it has been so successful in the U.S.S.R.?

The hon. Member has slightly disappointed me in his supplementary question. I thought he wanted me to refer to Mr. Khrushchev's speech on 23rd November, in which he said:

"The level of wages must correspond to the level of material production achieved by labour productivity. Labour productivity must always be one jump ahead of the growth of wages."

Secondly—the hon. Member will remember this, no doubt—Mr. Khrushchev said:

"Of course, the State is unable to allocate supplementary funds for wages, and consequently one should act within the limits of the wages funds available."

The final question Mr. Khrushchev asked was:

"If we raise wages and the wage funds are higher than the funds of goods what happens then?"

He was talking to tractor drivers and advocating a wage pause.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent his appeal for continued restraint in profits and dividends in paragraph 14 of the White Paper, Incomes Policy: The Next Step, includes restraint on the part of individuals and others in the matter of capital gains and increases in share values arising from mergers and takeover bids.

The White Paper deals with the question of restraint in the growth of all forms of incomes. The question of capital gains is a separate one. I have already expressed the intention to submit to the House proposals for taxing certain types of short-term gains now free of tax.

Does that Answer mean that the Chancellor is keeping a very careful eye on what is happening in the affairs of Courtaulds and I.C.I.? Is he keeping an eye on this sort of activity as a possible source of revenue?

I am keeping a careful eye on all sorts of things at the present time.

Since he has stated so carefully Mr. Khrushchev's policy, can the Chancellor tell us what Mr. Khruschchev does about capital gains?

What he said in his speech was this:

"If we raise wages and the wages funds are higher than the funds of goods, what happens then? You will have a lot of money, but you will not buy meat and milk in the shops, because the output of produce will fall still further behind the population's purchasing power. In such a situation the speculator is the only one to gain."

Is the Chancellor aware that he could galvanise this nation into a similar effort to that being made in the U.S.S.R. if there were fair dealing among all sections of the population? Does he not realise that it is precisely because there is this discrimination in favour of shareholders and against those who earn their living that he is dividing the nation and failing to get the response he wants?

I certainly agree that it is very necessary to convey to the people the sense of fair dealing. When hon. Members opposite talk about shareholders they never refer to cases where shareholders lose their money.

On a point of order. As you have frequently ruled that it is out of order to give quotations in supplementary questions, Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that it is in order to give quotations in supplementary answers?

Yes, it is.

The first Amendment selected is that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), It will be possible also to discuss with it the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), in page 11, line 22, to leave out subsection (1), but a vote may be taken only on the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper.

I beg to move, in page 11, line 23, to leave out from the first "State" to the end of line 26.

The effect of Clause 16 as it stands is that immigration officers should be appointed by the Secretary of State, and that, in addition, the Secretary of State may make arrangements with the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for the employment of Customs officers to act as immigration officers under the Bill. The Amendment seeks to delete the power to enable Customs officers to act as immigration officers.

For the Committee to appreciate the significance of this Amendment it is, perhaps, necessary for me to say something about the duties that will fall upon immigration officers when the Bill is enacted. Unfortunately, as a result of the Guillotine, we have not yet had full clarification of what those duties will be, or how immigration officers will act. We shall not know precisely what their functions will be until we see the instructions which the Home Secretary has promised to make public as soon as the Committee stage has finished and before the Bill reaches its Report stage.

On principle, I should have thought it unnecessary and undesirable to give to Customs officers the very wide and sweeping powers that will be given to immigration officers. We should, at least, know to what extent the Home Office intends to enrol Customs officers to supplement the work that will fall upon immigration officers.

For example, is it contemplated that this will be merely a casual, an occasional, use of Customs officers, and that it will arise only if immigration officers are themselves overworked? Or is it intended that Customs officers should be generally available to do the work of immigration officers at the ports? Can we have an assurance that the instructions to be given to immigration officers will be made available also to Customs officers?

The Committee will appreciate that I am not making any reflection on the admirable performance of their duties by Customs officers; any traveller returning from abroad can vouch for the fact that they perform their functions extraordinarily well. On the other hand, we must remember that Customs officers are primarily detectives; their primary duty is to stop smuggling, to stop contraband coming into the country. They are responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

If they are to be enrolled as supplementary immigration officers, will they be responsible to the Home Secretary? Will they, in respect of their functions under the Bill, have the same opportunities, when doubt arises, of quick and free access to the Home Secretary? I should also like to know whether any consultation has been had with them as to their preparedness to undertake these additional duties, which are totally different in kind from those they have hitherto been used to perform?

One reason why I think it objectionable that Customs officers should have this duty thrust upon them is that, as the Bill now stands, an immigration officer will have very sweeping powers. He will have the power to examine any immigrant. He will have the power to call for documents. He will have the power to search. There is a special provision that a woman immigrant cannot be searched except by a woman. Are there any women Customs officers? Are any women to be employed as Customs officers in order to deal with women immigrants?

I would remind the Home Secretary that in our debates last week the Attorney-General stated that it was proposed to use the powers given to the Government by the Bill not so much for attaching conditions to immigrants with regard to the duration of their stay and the kind of work that they could take, but chiefly for the control of immigration. The Attorney-General recognises—as I am sure does the Home Secretary—that very great responsibilities will devolve on immigration officers in the large number of borderline cases that will arise as to whether a particular immigrant should or should not be admitted.

One of the reasons given by the Attorney-General for rejecting the strong plea made by my hon. Friends that an immigrant should have the right of appeal either to a tribunal or an independent person was that immigration officers would have very wide experience in dealing with these matters and could be relied upon to reach the right conclusion in the case of every individual immigrant. But will the Customs officers have anything like the same experience? If the duties of deciding admission or rejection are to be devolved by the Home Secretary on Customs officers, how can it be said that they will have the wide experience which is required so that justice is done to Commonwealth citizens who want to come here?

In a number of cases where admission is granted and conditions are imposed, the decision—as to what kind of conditions, what limit shall be placed on the man's stay, if any, and what conditions there shall be about his work—will obviously call not only for a great deal of experience and judgment, but also for a considerable amount of tact in handling these matters. How can it be argued that Customs officers will be able to discharge these duties, considering the great experience that is required of immigration officers?

There is a further point I must put to the Home Secretary and which, I hope, he will clear up. As the Bill stands, certain categories of person under Clause 2 will have the right to come to this country provided that they satisfy the immigration officer—not the Customs officer—about their bona fides: first, those who have vouchers and can show that they have work to do; secondly, those who come here to study; and, thirdly, those who show that they can support themselves or can be supported by relatives. Any of those who can establish prima facie any of those three conditions have the right to come, subject only that they might be excluded on health grounds, because they have a criminal record or because they are a security risk. Such cases, I would imagine, would be very small in number.

In addition to those classes who have the right to come here, I understand from the Home Secretary that it is also contemplated that many other immigrants will be admitted under what is broadly called a "quota system." The Home Secretary made it clear on Second Reading—as it is clear from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill—that those who are to be admitted will not be limited to those who have a job to come to, to students or to those who can support themselves or can be supported by their relatives.

Others will be able to come here to seek work, if they so desire, up to prescribed numbers which, one may assume, will vary from month to month and probably from country to country. It is important that the Home Secretary should say something further about this, for we must look at the operation of the Bill as it will affect immigrants who want to come here and who are in doubt whether, if they come, they will be admitted or rejected.

I can appreciate that the mere passage of the Bill into law will have a deterrent effect. Whereas a great many people now come here knowing that they must be admitted as of right in future a large number of immigrants—not only from Canada and Australia, but, more particularly, from India, Pakistan and the West Indies—will be in doubt as to what their position will be if they get on a boat and arrive at Southampton.

3.45 p.m.

As the Bill stands, they are by no means certain about whether they will qualify because the decision to admit or reject them will, presumably, be taken on the spot, perhaps suddenly, by an immigration officer. Thus, great problems of human freedom and rights are involved in these questions and it seems chat unless some justification—which I cannot see at the moment—is given it will be difficult for the Home Office to delegate these responsible duties to anyone other than experienced immigration officers.

Another matter arises out of an observation, which astonished me, which was made by the Attorney-General in our debates last week. We were then arguing that there should be an appeal tribunal so that anyone rejected and refused admission under Clause 2—and who claimed to be a bona fide student, or who had a job to come to or whose relatives would support him—would have the right, if rejected, to appeal to some appellant tribunal. The Attorney-General said, when resisting an Opposition Amendment:

"In many cases admission may be refused"—

and we were dealing only with people coming under Clause 2—

"not on account of any personal idiosyncracies of the individual, but because sufficient numbers have already been admitted to the country for that particular time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 354.]

In other words, the Attorney-General seemed to be saying that even if people qualified under Clause 2 for admission to the United Kingdom, and should not be refused admission, nevertheless admission could be refused not on any personal ground relating to the applicant himself, but for a totally different reason for which the applicant could not be responsible, namely, that sufficient numbers had already been admitted to the country for that particular time.

I hope that the Home Secretary will qualify that today. I am tempted to say that I hope he will repudiate it, because it seems to make nonsense of the whole basis on which we were examining Clause 2 last week. I hope that it can be established that anyone who satisfies the requirements of Clause 2 can come here and that, over and above that, others will be admitted up to a given number.

There may be cases about which an immigration officer will have to decide. But how will he decide? How will the immigrant know from month to month whether sufficient numbers from a particular locality have or have not been admitted? There is another type of case for which it seems important that the discretion should be strictly confined to experienced immigration officers and should not be deputed to those who have no familiarity with immigration problems, but whose job it is to prevent contraband from being smuggled into the country. It was made clear last week that a large number of people will be coming to the United Kingdom in the hope of getting a job on the understanding that they are intending to do part-time work and act as part-time students.

In recent years large numbers of people have been coming here—deserving immigrants—who could be termed part-time students. Perhaps such an immigrant wants to do some work during the day and spend his evenings at the Peckham Institute, or some other place. Would such a student have the same rights as a Rhodes scholar or another accredited student coming to a university? These sort of matters will call for decisions to be made on the spot by immigration officers unless a number of immigrants are to be turned away.

It will be most important, if we pass the Bill, that it shall be administered as sympathetically as possible. The Home Secretary has more than once intimated that that is his intention. He could implement that intention if he made clear that in discharge of these responsibilities he will be served by experienced immigration officers only and that the duties will not be delegated to a wider class of person.