asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the administrative costs incurred in the first half of the fiscal year in implementing the capital gains tax.

I regret that it is not possible to make any precise estimate, but it must be small.

Why not, Sir?

Because the officers who do this work also do a great deal of other related work and it is not possible to separate the cost of their doing one job from doing another.

Does the Chief Secretary think the revenue is likely to exceed the administrative cost?

As I say, it is impossible to give a figure, but it is very small.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, following the analysis of the rating problem which he has instituted, he is now in the position to make a statement.

I cannot now add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said on this general subject in answer to Questions on 7th and 18th March.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the gravity of this problem will increase in the next five years and that particularly the educational projections are very relevant to it? For certain sections of the community neither the ability to pay nor the use of the services—I am referring to retired people —is particularly relevant. It is very important that a complete statement should be made.

No one underrates the importance of this problem, in respect of which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made a fairly lengthy statement on the two very recent dates to which I have referred.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people in all political parties recognise that there is a need for expanding social services but are convinced that the present rating system is thoroughly unjust and thoroughly inequitable? Is it not his duty, as one responsible for taxation, to consider whether he cannot make taxation fairer?

In the first place, this is not my duty but that of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who made the statements to which I have referred.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the basis of the Report on Revision of the Index of Retail Prices, Command Paper No. 1657, and the figures published by the Central Statistical Office in November, 1962, by how much the value of State benefits received through the social services and in other ways exceeds the payments of tax by a representative family, comprising a married couple and two children of school age, having an income before tax equal to the average of male earnings.

The tables referred to by my hon. Friend show that such a household would in 1959 have been in the income range £616–£712. On average, State benefits then exceeded taxes by £30 for households in this income range consisting of two adults and two children.

May I be made quite clear about this? Can my right hon. Friend say that any family which is currently in this category—say, a husband and wife and two children of school age with an income such as I have described in the Question—is receiving by way of social services and the like £30 a year more than it would be paying in direct and indirect taxes?

My hon. Friend says "currently", but as my main Answer will make clear when he has time to study it, the 1962 tables referred to in the Question deal with such families in 1959, to which my Answer refers. There are no more up-to-date calculations as to the relativities, but he will know that since that date there have been two general increases of social security benefits.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation to provide that fines for parking offences are not expenses deductible for taxation purposes.

No, Sir. Fines imposed on a taxpayer for such breaches of the law are not deductible as expenses in computing his income for tax purposes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am very grateful for that decision? In some cases there are two standards developing, one for what the individual can afford and another for what companies can afford. Will he ensure that expenses are reduced to a minimum?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but his gratitude is really at least as much due to the courts whose decision is to the effect that I have already announced.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he underestimated the Vote for the Inland Revenue (Class I, Vote 7) by £1,681,000.

Because the original Estimate was submitted before award No. 415 of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal on 5th June, 1962, increased most Civil Service salaries by 4 per ent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this increase is 2¾ per cent. on the original, which is more than the "guiding light"? Surely the Inland Revenue of all people ought to have been able to foresee these increases and have included them in the original Estimates?

This, as my main Answer made clear, was the result of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal's ruling. I do not myself think that it is at all a bad indication of efficiency that, against a general salary award of 4 per cent., the actual increased financial provision is only 2¾ per cent.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the administrative cost to his department involved in making a distinction between earned and unearned income for fiscal purposes.

Very small.

Can my right. hon. Friend be a little more specific?

I am afraid I cannot, because again this is work which is undertaken as part of the general work of officers of the Inland Revenue. It is quite unrealistic to try to say that this particular one of their functions costs a specific amount of their salaries.

In that case, will my right hon. Friend introduce modern costing methods into his rather overworked machine?

I think that our costing methods are extremely efficient, but none the less that does not enable us to split the atom.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent instructions have been issued to district tax inspectors to reassess the Income Tax liability of persons with small savings in co-operative societies and trustee savings banks, going back up to 20 years, with a view to collecting small amounts of tax due on interest receipts.

None, Sir.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that hundreds of small savers are being grilled by tax inspectors with a view to recovering a few £s or shillings of tax said to be due on interest receipts which most of these people innocently believed to be not liable to tax? Could not the overworked Inland Revenue staffs be more effectively, usefully and economically employed on other activities?

I do not think that "grilled" is a fair description of public servants who are doing the duty laid on them by Parliament. I understand there has been some increase in the number of requests for this sort of payment resulting, not as the hon. Gentleman suggests from any specific instruction, but from the fact that the bodies paying the interest in their returns have shown an increased number of these cases.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent instructions have been issued to district tax inspectors to reassess the Income Tax liability of persons claiming expenses reliefs, going back up to 20 years, with a view to collecting tax due on expenditure not wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of business or professional duties.

None, Sir.

If the Inland Revenue is concerned about collecting not a few £s and shillings but thousands of £s of tax which ought to be paid on undisclosed and unexamined expenses, could not the right hon. Gentleman put the Inland Revenue staffs to investigating the details of expense accounts instead of following the present practice of agreeing a round figure without detailed examination?

This matter has been discussed at great length in the course, among other things, of various Finance Bills. Here again, what the Inland Revenue is doing is to carry out the law as laid down by Parliament.

What is the rough global figure of expense accounts allowed for tax purposes?

I cannot give that figure without notice.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why substantial Income Tax, Schedule A and Schedule B, is payable by private sports ground owner-occupiers and tenant-occupiers at a nominal rent in respect of their fields used for amateur sport; and if he will make a statement.

Under the present law the amounts of Schedule A and Schedule B assessments depend upon the annual value of the property and not on the rent paid. As regards the second part of the Question. I cannot of course anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that a number of amateur bodies are very hard hit by increases in rates and by having to pay substantial sums of money which are not justified? Will he draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this fact in the hopes that next month something will be done to alleviate the position?

This is within the review which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) promised last year, and at this time of the year perhaps I had better say no more.

Is my right hon. Friend aware what encouragement it would give to youth if Schedule A and Schedule B were abolished on sports grounds?

Again I must ask my hon. Friend lo await the Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider taking steps to provide a subsidy to those local authorities situated in areas of high unemployment who are prepared to exempt industry in those areas from rates.

No, Sir.

Does not my right hon. Friend consider that practical encouragement is needed and that the alleviation of rates for a fixed period of years would accelerate the establishment of businesses in these areas and probably also assist those businesses already established there to expand?

I am very far from lacking sympathy with my hon. Friend's general purpose, but, as he will recall, we are only just coming up at the beginning of next month to the full rerating of industry which the House discussed and considered some time ago. I do not think that there is any case for reversing that process.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent steps have been taken to ensure that the placing of contracts by Government Departments is done with full consideration of the needs of areas of high unemployment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what measures are taken to allocate work to firms in development areas;

All staff concerned continue to be under instruction to give special consideration to firms in development districts. Where competitive tenders are submitted firms in such districts are always given a chance to tender. If the tenders of such firms fail to obtain a substantial part of the order, they are offered 25 per cent. of the contract at a price equivalent to that of the successful tender.

Surely the Minister appreciates that the offer which is then given is such that it is almost impossible for it to be accepted. Will he have a look at the figures of unemployment announced this morning, for they give him no room for complacency? Whatever the right hon. Gentleman thinks is being done, is is not clear that it is not meeting with any considerable success? Is he aware that a recent examination of estimates shows that the Government have a massive power of industrial patronage? Can we not have a more purposeful direction of this work so that it goes to areas like Scotland and the North East where the work is badly needed?

If the hon. Member will study my main Answer—which, I admit, is quite complicated—he will see that very real preference is given in this respect to firms in areas where there is unemployment.

Does the Chief Secretary agree that there is need to channel more work into the development areas? Will he have another look at the system of allocating the share of contracts to see that firms in the development districts are given a fair price in order to carry out their contracts?

This matter is kept under review. On the wider issue to which the hon. Member refers, he will be aware of the number of recent announcements of additional work for these areas which has been authorised.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what statistics are kept in the various Departments concerning the allocation of contracts, because a week or two ago the Secretary of State for Air was unable to give the details when he was questioned by hon. Members who represent Scotland? If they do not keep these statistics, will the Chief Secretary assure us that they will do so from now on?

I quite agree that we want, as part of the keeping of this under review, to see how this is going. I am not aware of the Answer to which the hon. Member referred and which was given by my right hon. Friend, but there may have been special circumstances.

Does not the recent failure of the Government to place any further substantial contracts with Messrs. Short Bros. and Harland, Belfast, completely cut across the policy which the right hon. Gentleman says the Government are pursuing?

I do not think that an argument based on a particular firm has any significance in the context of the general policy, because it cuts out references to the other contracts to which I have referred and about which announcements have been made in recent weeks concerning firms in these areas.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent steps he has taken to ensure that Government spending is used to assist areas of high unemployment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that the spending of Her Majesty's Government is directed more than at present towards areas of persistently high unemployment.

I would refer the hon. Members to the announcements made in this House on 8th November, 1962, 27th November, 1962, 17th December, 1962, 4th February, 1963 and 14th March, 1963.

In spite of these announcements, would the right hon. Gentleman examine the Answers that have been given to Scottish hon. Members in past months about the extent to which Government spending is being directed towards Scotland? After making that examination, will he make further efforts to see that a greater proportion of the expenditure is directed to areas of highest unemployment?

I think that if the hon. Member will look fairly at the announcements to which I have referred, he will see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a considerable number of announcements of extra additional work for Scotland: for example, in respect of electricity and roads.

Does the Chief Secretary consider the very fact that there is such a concentration of Government spending Departments in London results in a heavy bias in favour of the placing of contracts and orders for Government goods in or near London? Will he do what he can to rectify this heavy bias in favour of this part of the country?

I do not think so, because orders have to be placed where the articles in question can be produced; and much of the heavy industry to which these orders relate is not represented in the London area at all.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at the so-called schemes designed to help local authorities in clearing derelict areas and other schemes for the short-term relief of unemployment? Will he assure himself that this is not just applying to schemes which have already been endorsed and are merely brought forward in the programme? In my constituency I have proof that newer schemes which would come within the ambit of the statement are being refused because they had not been previously authorised.

I am not sure whether the hon. Member is on the point of the general minor works relaxation of control or the question of the clearance of derelict sites, a Question about which I answered a moment ago. On the latter, I have said that a statement has been promised, although I cannot anticipate it today.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases of grant he is making to local authorities for the reclamation of derelict industrial land.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the increased scale of financial assistance available to local authorities for the clearing of derelict sites under the terms of the Local Employment Act.

I hope it will be possible to make a statement shortly.

Win the right hon. Gentleman give very serious consideration to making a 100 per cent. grant? Does he not agree that generally the muck which has been left behind which the ratepayers and the taxpayers have to clear up has led to considerable profits by the firms which have left the muck? Is it not, therefore, just that the national taxpayer should pay a very high grant towards relieving local taxpayers?

There is certainly a very serious case to consider for increasing the rate of grant, though I am inclined to differ from the hon. Gentleman as regards 100 per cent. grants, which I think in principle are not generally very sound.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable degree of urgency required here? The Answer I received yesterday to a Question I put to the Secretary of State for Scotland revealed that there are 15,000 acres of derelict sites in the industrial belt of Scotland alone. So far only 11·5 acres have been cleared. This is a trifling attack on the problem. Clearly the grant is wholly inadequate to encourage local authorities to get on with the job.

It is just those matters which my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland are going into at the moment, and I do not think that there will be very much delay.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposed rating valuations for 1963-64 will be used as a basis for new future revaluation.

The law prescribes quinquennial rating valuations. For future revaluations, as for that which comes into force shortly, properties are required to be valued by reference to the level of rents then current.

Can I be assured that, in cases where the new rates to be levied show a smaller increase than in many other places, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will count this for efficiency? Where this applies to a small county, as it applies to the County of Rutland, will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and draw his attention to this efficiency?

I always admire the skill and adroitness with which my hon. Friend defends the interests of the County of Rutland.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the Ayr County Council in reply to their letter of 1st March regarding the continuance of the tax on fuel oil.

The council's letter has been acknowledged. At this time of year, my right hon. Friend cannot say more.

I was expecting that answer. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that for children getting to school, workers getting to work and older people getting to shopping centres it creates a very heavy charge on the family budget for public transport if this tax is continued?

The point my hon. Friend makes will certainly be most carefully considered.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that eight different types of £5 banknotes, some of them very similar in size and colouring to £1 notes, are in use in Scotland, and are causing inconvenience and disputes between the public, shopkeepers and business houses; and if he will introduce legislation to remedy this.

I am not aware of any developments calling for legislation.

If the hon. Gentleman will make inquiries he will find that in essence the statement in my Question is correct. Is he not aware that there is between the shopkeeper and the public a growing lack of good faith and that disputations arise because of statements made about certain notes that are handed over being of a higher denomination when, in fact, they are of a smaller denomination? Will not he look into this matter again?

In principle, I am sure that there is very much to be said for having a single set of notes in circulation, but the rights of the Scottish banks to individual note issues are of long standing and we should think very carefully before taking those rights away.

Since the hon. Gentleman agrees with the need to remedy this situation, what steps will he take to have the position put in order?

I am sure that this is not a matter for legislation. I am advised that the Scottish banks are very well aware of the need for co-ordination. As I have said, their rights to issue notes is of long standing, and I am sure that Scottish sentiments in the matter should be paramount.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to increase the funds available to support economic research.

Much economic research is undertaken in the universities out of Government grants, and it is for the universities to decide what part of these grants, now greatly increased, should be devoted to this purpose. Economic research directly carried out or commissioned by Government Departments, including the D.S.I.R., the Ministries of Transport, Housing and Local Government and Agriculture, Scottish Development Department and Treasury, has greatly increased in recent years and is still increasing.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of the Royal Economic Society in which attention is drawn to the inadequacy of the funds available for research? In view of the lip-service which the Government are at present paying to economic planning, does the Chief Secretary not think that more should be done?

I saw the very interesting article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I do not think it followed his suggestion that we were paying lip-service to anything.

Is any adequate economic research being done into the problems and evils of inflation?

That would no doubt come within the purview of the various bodies to which I have referred, as I think my hon. Friend knows.

Has the Chief Secretary seen the figures for industrial production for December showing that the original figure of 115 has now had to be reduced to 111? Does not that show that there must be a great inadequacy in Government information in these services?

I do not think that that has any bearing whatever on the question of economic research. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers concerns the question of whether the statistical machinery at the disposal of the Government, particularly in regard to provisional figures which the House always wants quickly, is adequate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much pension, including all increases, is received by a 55-years-old widow of a higher executive officer in the Civil Service who retired in 1958 and died on 3rd November, 1958; and how much it would be if her husband had retired this year and died today, assuming in each case no children and retirement from a London post after maximum service.

£214 and £246, respectively.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the widow of an Army captain in similar circumstances whose husband retired this year and died today would receive much the same pension as the higher executive officer, but, on the other hand, if both husbands died on 3rd November, 1958, the captain's widow would receive £72 less? Does he not agree that that makes nonsense of the argument frequently put forward by the Government that these Service pensions cannot be increased because all public servants must be treated alike?

I have answered the Question my hon. Friend put down in respect of civil servants. He will appreciate that the question of pensions for the widows of members of the Armed Forces is not a matter for me but for my right hon. Friends the Service Ministers

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many assistant principals in the Civil Service have degrees in scientific subjects; and what proportion these form of that grade.

Fourteen, which is 7 per cent. of that grade.

Is not this a very low figure? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is desirable to have more scientists and engineers in the Administrative grades? Is he doing anything about this?

I should certainly like to see rather more, although in the Administrative grade what is required is a trained mind and general administrative ability almost regardless of the particular intellectual discipline which the candidate has followed. In fact, in the somewhat higher grades—Under-Secretary and above—the proportion is about double that obtaining in the grade the hon. Gentleman selected for his Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that the recurrent grant so far awarded will enable the universities to expand sufficiently to cope with the increased demand for places in 1966 and thereafter; and if he will make a statement.

No recurrent grants have been announced for the period after 1966–67 which falls in the next quinquennium. On the position up to 1966, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave to his Question of 12th February and point out that the Government have undertaken to review the level of recurrent grant within two years from March 1962, in the light of expansion achieved and all other relevant factors.

Does my right hon. Friend know whether the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, to whom I originally put down this Question, agrees or disagrees with the unanimous opinion of the University Grants Committee, the Vice-Chancellors and Principals Committee and the Association of University Teachers that the 1966 target cannot possibly be achieved on the present grant? Is he aware that it is of the utmost urgency that he should new announce the recurrent grant for 1963–64 without waiting for Robbins?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Report of the Robbins Committee, important though it is, is not necessarily decisive in this regard. My hon. Friend will himself be aware that some of the statements to which he has referred were made before the various announcements of expansion, such as the one I made to Parliament earlier this week, in respect of the Government's programme for universities.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that the Government's own target for 1966 does not provide for any increased proportion of university students?

If the hon. Gentleman takes the separate year 1966 by itself— which is, of course, the peak year of the post-war bulge—he is very nearly right, but if he takes any other year before or after that he will find the proportion rising.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that on 24th January he gave me figures that showed a fractional decrease from 1962 to 1966 in the percentage of university students in relation to the age group?

Apart from 1966, the general tendency is upward even when one confines it to university students, but as I made clear in the Answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers, higher education generally, particularly as a result of the big expansion in the colleges of advanced technology, shows an overall improved proportion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent, in fixing the current level of university grants, he took account of the fact that the present rate of university expansion will not increase the proportion of the relevant age group able to take advantage of university education.

The hon. Member is in error. The present planned rate of university expansion will in fact provide for a higher proportion of the relevant age groups to receive a university education in the next four years of this quinquennium than in the current one. Once the peak of the postwar bulge in the birth rate in 1966–67 is past, planning is for expansion which will further improve this proportion. The main consideration governing the decision last March was the capacity of the universities to expand without loss of standards. The hon. Member will no doubt he aware that during the present quinquennium, current plans provide for an increase in student numbers of 35 per cent. above 1961–62 at universities, and that this is supported by a planned increase of 75 per cent. in students in other institutions providing higher education. This is far the biggest expansion in higher education that this country has ever known.

Will the Minister look again at column 258 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 24th January, where he told me that in 1962–63 the proportion of the age group able to get university education was 4·59 per cent. and that in 1966–67 it would be 4·57 per cent.—a fractional decrease in the proportion of the age group able to get university education?

That Answer, which I have very much in mind, does not in any way invalidate what I have just said about the upward tendency, with the sole exception of 1966–67.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the clearing house arrangements for applicants to enter universities to be sufficiently advanced to enable him to state the number of qualified students who are unable to obtain university places.

These arrangements are run by the universities themselves and applications in respect of the universities taking part in them are now being put through the Central Office for Admissions for the academic year beginning next October. While these arrangements will certainly give us better figures on the demand for university places than we have now, I do not think they will produce a complete answer to the hon. Member's Question, since, on the one hand, not all applicants will reach the standard acceptable to universities, and, on the other, some applicants will gain admission in subsequent years.

Is the right hon. Gentleman unaware that many of these young people who have passed their entrance examination to universities come to see Members of Parliament and deplore the fact that they cannot obtain a place? Surely to goodness the Government have a responsibility to see that the buildings are expanded and new universities are built so that these men can have the places. Would not this be of great benefit to British society later on?

As for the first part of the supplementary question, I said in reply to an earlier question that we are seeing the development of the biggest increase in universities which this country has ever seen. The allocation of places to individuals has always been thought rightly to be a matter not for the Government but for the universities themselves. I very much hope that their admirable proposal for a central office for admissions, with which most but not all the universities are cooperating, will help to see that placing is carried out perhaps more effectively than it has been in the past.

Has the right hon. Gentleman not seen the estimates made recently in the newspapers by some university staff members showing that about 50 per cent. of fully qualified men and women applicants are failing to find places in the universities?

I have seen all sorts of figures bandied about. They turn to some extent on how one defines "fully qualified" and whether one is concerned with entry in a particular year or over an extended period.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet come to a conclusion regarding the establishment of a duty-free area at Prestwick Airport.

Officials of the Customs and Excise have met representatives of the Ayr County Council and had discussions which both sides agree to have been very useful: both bodies are considering the matter further in the light of the discussions.

Will my hon. Friend continue to bear in mind what I have said before, that this sort of tax-free area would prove a powerful incentive to industrialists, both north and south of the border, to settle in nearby development districts? Will he therefore overcome the technical prejudices that exist, seeing that Shannon has proved such a very good example of what can be done?

I do not think that any technical prejudices exist. The position is that these discussions have taken place, they are likely to continue, and we shall certainly watch them with care. I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no delay in considering the results of the discussions.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that the representative delegation that recently visited him shares the view that these conversations were very useful? Can he assure the very large public that is vitally interested in this project that sympathetic consideration will continue, and be urgent?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I am sure that it must be right that, while the conversations continue, they should be kept confidential. The important point is that there should be no delay in considering what comes out of them, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noted what I have already said on that point.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the evidence of the Economic Adviser to Her Majesty's Government, Professor Cairncross, to the National Incomes Commission to the effect that there was no reason to expect the rate of growth in output per head to reach 3 per cent. per annum in 1966, represented Government policy.

I think that the Economic Adviser has been misreported. What he said was that there was as yet no evidence to show conclusively that the increase in output per head would be as high as 3 per cent. or 3·2 per cent. in 1966. But, as the hon. Member will see from the verbatim report of the proceedings which is available in the Library, he went on to make it clear that the Government considered a higher rate of growth as feasible.

Is it not quite clear from this transcript that the Treasury estimates are far more pessimistic than those of the National Economic Development Council? If gloomy views of that sort are to be expressed before the National Incomes Commission, would it not be much better if the Chancellor of the Exchequer went to the National Incomes Commission and said so himself, on his own responsibility?

I cannot accept either that there is gloom or that the target for growth is not accepted. That is not so.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the first report of the National Economic Development Council, he will state the specific Government proposals necessary to enable the target for a 4 per cent. increase in output per year to be reached.

The achievement of the 4 per cent. objective accepted by the National Economic Development Council will call for a parallel effort by Government, management and trade unions in which the Government intend to play their full part. The Council, which is still discussing the Director-General's Report, has not yet set out its conclusions.

Will the Economic Secretary realise that speed is really the element that is required, and will he do his best to get the matter speeded up so that there can be a proper plan and we can know what it is?

We certainly would agree that speed is important, but so, also, is careful consideration.

Have the Government accepted this first Report—including the 4 per cent. target—as Government policy?

We have accepted the Report in general but not necessarily in every particular.

Will the hon. Gentleman indicate when he expects the final Report of the National Economic Development Council? Is he aware that the whole House and the country agree that, although speed is essential, a very full investigation is necessary? Will he therefore say when he hopes the National Economic Development Council to submit a real, fundamental Report, because that is so important to the welfare of the nation?

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said about the need for careful consideration. That is absolutely true. It is too early yet to give him a precise forecast of the kind for which he asks, as I am sure he will understand.

When the Economic Secretary says that the Government accept the Report in general but not in every particular, what does he mean? We have had a target of 4 per cent. or thereabouts for years, but have never attained it. Do the Government mean that we intend to grow at a rate of 4 per cent. per annum? Is that their fixed intention?

The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question is a clear "Yes". As to the first part, obviously the National Economic Development Council considered a large number of matters and made a large number of forecasts. I cannot say that each and every one of these is entirely accepted by the Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has about the number of British firms which have proceeded with projects for direct investment in new manufacturing plant in the European Economic Community since the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations; and what sums are involved.

In the period 1st February to 15th March, 1963, Exchange Control consent was given for 15 such projects involving about £4 million.

Is not this a considerable increase on what has gone before? Is it not rather alarming and does it not demonstrate, among other things, complete lack of confidence in the Government? Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made way for a Government which would command the confidence of both industrialists and the nation?

I am sorry that the hon. Member has got it so wrong. The fact is that no increase of any significance whatsoever is apparent. Therefore, if that is the premise the remainder of the hon. Member's suppositions fall with a clang to the ground.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he hopes to announce additional aid of some £7,835,000, forming the balance of the £10 million originally suggested as aid from under-utilised resources in Scotland, north-east England, Merseyside, southwest England and Northern Ireland to developing countries.

Parliament will be informed of these and other proposals involving public expenditure in support of developing countries as arrangements are made.

Since this was mentioned on 5th November, is not the time-scale unsatisfactory?

I do not think so. The proposals are somewhat complicated in that they involve, on the one hand, assessing the needs of certain countries and, on the other, seeing that they can be related to surplus capacity here. The work is going quite well.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of these moneys is to be allocated to north-east Scotland, where there is considerable and increasing unemployment?

I cannot anticipate where the proposals will go until I am in a position to announce the proposals themselves.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, when making Pay As You Earn Income Tax refunds, he will do so other than by cheque, with a view to avoiding inconvenience to the recipient.

The practice of making Income Tax repayments by crossed cheque has substantial advantages of security and economy. If the hon. Member has in mind any particular case in which difficulty has arisen perhaps he will let me know.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is difficulty here in that where a recipient does not have a bank account the banks will not cash his cheque? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that only last week one person visited three banks and still could not have his P.A.Y.E. Income Tax refund cashed? In these circumstances would not the right hon. Gentleman consider sending these refunds by money order and sparing recipients this inconvenience?

The refund can be paid into either a Post Office or a Trustee Savings Bank account. This helps in a great many cases, but if the hon. Member knows of particular cases of difficulty I will gladly look into them and see if anything can be done.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of removing Purchase Tax from bicycles, motor cycles, motor scooters and mopeds, respectively.

The annual costs are estimated to be of the order of £1¾million for pedal cycles, £½ million for scooters, £½ million for mopeds, and £1¾ million for other motor bicycles.

In view of that Answer and the fact that I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has seen a deputation from this industry, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman would see to it that his right hon. Friend knows of the difficulties which are being experienced by the industry at present, and in particular that no fewer than six factories have had to close in the last eighteen months? In view of this, and the fact that the industry is one of our best export industries, exporting no less than £26 million worth last year, is there not a good case for easing up on Purchase Tax on these commodities?

As the hon. Member says, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Sir N. Hulbert) recently brought a deputation to see me. I listened most carefully to all they had to say and reported upon it to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear it in mind.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that to remove or to reduce the Purchase Tax on these forms of vehicle would be of great benefit to those who live in rural areas where they are often denied public transport? Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether at least a reduction cannot be made in the Purchase Tax on these vehicles?

I note what the hon. Member has said, but I cannot comment further only thirteen days before the Budget, as I know the hon. Member will understand.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now recommend to President Kennedy a fresh British-American initiative to reach agreement on a nuclear tests ban.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the new deadlock at Geneva, he will now discuss with President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev compromise general disarmament proposals drawn from the best of the United States and Soviet disarmament plans.

I am in frequent communication with President Kennedy on important matters of common concern, and our two delegations at the Geneva Conference are in constant touch. The records of the Conference show the many initiatives we have taken. Our aim is to seek areas of common agreement in which progress might be possible, but this should be done by negotiation at the Conference.

Granted that the Russians' attitude towards tests is very hard to define, may I ask whether the possibility that they would violate an agreement reached on their terms is very much greater in practice than the possibility that they would violate an agreement reached on our terms? Is it necessarily worse for us to run this risk than to run the risk of not reaching agreement at all? Therefore, would the Prime Minister give us an assurance that before he allows these talks to fail he will use all his influence with our American friends to reach a compromise agreement?

I take note of the first part of the supplementary question and I think that it is a relevant consideration. On the other hand, what we hope to reach is an agreement which one would assume would not be violated. The only question is to what extent in number and in character these inspections are necessary. We feel that they are necessary. The Russians have accepted that, and that is an advance. We must now try by every possible means to get agreement both as to numbers and the conditions under which inspection takes place.

Is it not most unlikely that any progress on general disarmament will be made at Geneva as long as there are two major disarmament plans before the conference? Would it not be possible to invite the United Nations Secretary-General to produce a compromise plan drawn from the best of both the United States and the Soviet disarmament plans?

The right hon. Gentleman's proposal would require the agreement of the parties, but I see great merit in what he has suggested and I am quite ready to look into the matter further. What we had rather hoped was that the conference would make a combination of the agreed elements of the two plans, but if there is other machinery for getting it put in a simple form I will certainly look into it and see whether we can proceed in that way.

Is the Prime Minister aware that on Tuesday we had an exchange about the tests ban and the House is content to leave that matter where it was then left for Geneva? On the more long-range general multilateral disarmament question, we have had these two statements from the United States and the Soviet Union, and the Foreign Secretary said in another place a year ago that he thought that it was possible to introduce a compromise draft which would reconcile the various points. Could the Prime Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government have produced a compromise plan which they are prepared to table at Geneva as an alternative to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) for leaving it to the Secretary-General of the United Nations?

What my noble Friend said at Geneva on 20th March last year was that the conference, rather than Her Majesty's Government, should select subjects of agreement from the two plans and frame procedures for them. That, unluckily, has not happened, although I think that it ought to be possible. I think that the method suggested by the right hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) is a method of procedure which might commend itself to the conference.

Perhaps the Prime Minister did not quite take my point. Since the Foreign Secretary was quite hopeful in thinking that the gap was not unbridgeable, on which we on this side of the House, after close study of the matter, would agree with him, and since it is a year yesterday since the noble Lord said this, does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that the British Government during that year should have tabled an initiative before the conference so that what the Foreign Secretary said could have been realised? Does the Prime Minister not feel that just occasionally the British Government should take an initiative in disarmament, which, on the whole, they have not done?

It is very easy to take an initiative if one wants to strike an attitude, but I am much more interested in seeing whether we can get this settled. The suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman, which I will study, has the advantage that it appears to come from a neutral source. It has been suggested that if the Secretary-General could not do it, perhaps the eight neutral countries themselves, which have a kind of middle position, could do it. I am only anxious to take whatever course is most likely to promote the ultimate agreement.

asked the Prime Minister what recent information he has received from the United States Government about the effects of the high-altitude tests conducted from Johnston Island; and to what extent the United States Government have, following the statement made by him on 8th May, 1962, kept the British Government and British scientists fully informed on the matter.

As I told the House on 24th January, a considerable number of reports have been received from the United States Government. Exchanges of this kind are part of a continuing process. In addition the United States Government and other observers have now published a great deal of information about the effects of those tests, as can be seen from recent scientific literature, and more can probably be expected as studies of the observations continue.

Does not that reply conceal the fact that the latest information from the United States is that it was Sir Bernard Lovell in his country who was right on the effects of the high altitude tests and that most of the scientists in America and the Government's own advisers have been proved wrong? Is it not also a fact that Dr. Van Allen, whom the Prime Minister cited on his side when he gave the reply on the date mentioned in the Question, has now changed his opinion and accepts the view of Sir Bernard Lovell? Does not the Prime Minister think that it would be gracious if he paid a compliment to a British scientist for his superior knowledge in this matter?

It is true, as I understand it, that Dr. Van Allen has somewhat changed his view from that which he expressed before, which shows the great complexity of this problem. What we are dealing with is not tests which are made from Christmas Island or over which we have any control. They are tests made by the United States Government in Johnston Island and on which, by courtesy, we have been consulted and informed as to the probable effects and the actual results.

The right hon. Gentleman really must not dodge this. Is he aware that all the Questions on which he stalled in answering last year were based on our knowledge that the rainbow tests were from American territory, not Christmas Island, and therefore we asked him to look into the scientific effects. Everybody knew that it was not Christmas Island.

I admit that I have to weigh the information that is given to me. Sir Bernard Lovell took a certain view which has proved to be correct in this respect, which I gladly accept. Dr. Van Allen changed his view. Professor Fred Hoyle's view is given in an article which states:

"In predicting the effects of space explosions you had to solve four equations "—

"'but they cannot be solved unless you simplify them'. If you simplified them wrongly your predictions would be wrong".

Whilst I appreciate that we cannot undo what has been done, would my right hon. Friend now consider asking the President that before the Americans consider carrying out any further experiments of this nature they should at least consult, perhaps, Sir Bernard Lovell and some other British scientists as well and put them in touch with the American scientists who advise the President?

Yes, Sir. I feel sure that I could give that undertaking. I am quite sure that the United States authorities would be very willing to receive all the information they could. What one hopes is that there will not be these further tests—there certainly cannot be for a considerable time, because we all know that even if the worst happened there is a long period while one series is being evaluated and another planned. What I should like to concentrate upon is somehow to find, as I believe is the wish of the House, a way in which certainly these atmospheric tests and, I hope, all tests can be done away with altogether.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole House will agree with what he has just said about our hope that all tests, whether American, Russian or anyone else's, will now be done away with altogether and that this is the most important question? Since, however, it is possible for eminent scientists, and even Prime Ministers, to get their four equations wrong, as has been proved—

And future ones, too.

All of us must try to get our four equations right—may I ask the Prime Minister whether he could consider and, perhaps, report to the House later upon the advice which he now has about the extent of the duration of the disturbance of the upper atmospere? It is obviously much longer than some experts and the Prime Minister thought a year ago. Has he an estimate to make of how long it will remain deranged?

Without apologising more than I ought to do for any misstatement which I may have made—because these are very difficult matters to deal with, except with the advice which I have to draw upon, which is that of the official advisers to the Government—I would say that there is an immensely complicated series of questions. As I understood him, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) thought that whichever of my colleagues should succeed me as Prime Minister might suffer from the same disadvantage. Meanwhile, however, if the right hon. Gentleman will give me notice of the precise question or put it down, I will do my best to get the best answer I can.

When is the Prime Minister going?

asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to set up a Department of Disarmament with a senior Minister in charge of it.

No, Sir. Disarmament is closely linked with the fundamental responsibilities of the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Defence. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs already has special responsibility, under the Foreign Secretary, for disarmament and devotes a very large part of his time to it.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, arising from the recent exchanges on this subject, there is a great deal of feeling among independent observers at Geneva that the British Government are failing to take an adequate lead in bringing the two sides together? Would it not help towards this end to change the governmental arrangements here and to treat disarmament as a separate subject and give it a powerful voice of its own inside the Cabinet?

I do not think it is a question of a voice inside the Cabinet. The problem which I have to try to solve is how best to get an agreement, whether on a test ban or on disarmament. That depends, as we know, on getting a move which is acceptable to the two greatest of the nuclear Powers, and, in my view, that depends largely on the personal decision made by the Chairman of the Soviet Union.

asked the Prime Minister what decision has been taken by Her Majesty's Government on the recommendation of the Royal College of Physicians' report 12 months ago in regard to cigarette advertising being prohibited on television.

asked the Prime Minister which other Government Departments or official bodies in addition to the Medical Research Council, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education are concerned with the problem of the dangers to health of cigarette smoking; what are their functions in this connection; and what resources they are afforded by the Government.

As regards television advertising, the Government do not propose, for the time being at any rate, to go beyond the rules which have been introduced in independent television restricting cigarette advertising until after about 9 p.m., and banning certain methods of advertising for cigarettes.

Does the Prime Minister really believe that young men and women cease viewing at nine o'clock at night? Why is it that, although the Prime Minister last summer said three times in the House that the Government were considering the matter as a whole, no announcement of their decision has been made to the House apart from this agreement between the I.T.A. and the advertisers?

This is one of the methods—there are many others recommended—which are being produced by the various authorities concerned.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the medical profession is deeply distressed at the total inadequacy of Government measures to bring the dangers connected with cigarette smoking to the attention of the public? By the time Question Time has finished today, three people will have died of lung cancer, apart from the disease and deaths caused by other effects of cigarette smoking. Will not the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Government will take some effective action to bring these dangers to the attention of the public?

While the Royal College of Physicians recommended that tobacco advertisements should be restricted, it also recorded a doubt as to whether advertisements did much to initiate the smoking habit. Therefore, although I think that this is a good arrangement to be made about restricting television advertisements, the chief work is in the way of general propaganda by all the various means which I have on this occasion and on others described.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that members of the medical profession are among the heaviest smokers in the country?

Does the Prime Minister realise that the people of Britain have been smoking tobacco for 360 years and that the population of 360 years ago was five million and is now 50 million? It would therefore appear that it has not done a lot of harm to this nation. May I seriously ask the right. hon Gentleman whether he will ask the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for the Home Department to publish statistics showing the number of deaths that are known to be due to lung cancer through smoking and the number of deaths on our roads due to drunken driving so that we may get the situation into relative proportion?

I would not attempt—it would be foolish of me or of anyone to do so—to try to go behind the decision and views expressed by the Medical Research Council. I am sure that the members of the Council are the right judges. Nevertheless, nobody suggests in this free country that people should be prevented from smoking. What is suggested is that the views of the doctors and the dangers concerned should be made known to the people by a government in a free country. That is our duty, and nothing more.