asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will advise the setting up of a. Royal Commission to investigate the ownership, control and development of the foreshore and inshore coastal waters similar to that on common lands.

No, Sir.

Will the Chancellor look again at this matter, because with the increased use of the inshore waters and coastal areas for recreational purposes, along with the shortage of moorings and so on, it is becoming a real problem throughout the coastal areas trying to find out who owns and controls any area?

I understand that the present system is working quite satisfactorily, but if my hon. Friend has any evidence to the contrary I shall be glad to examine it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he will employ in deciding the priority to be given in the public investment programme to the introduction of a decimal currency system.

The greater part of the public investment programme comprises continuing requirements such as housing, health, roads and education. For the rest we look at all relevant factors, including, in particular, costs and benefits.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while he said in reply to a Question on 12th May that the costs and benefits of decimalisation must be weighed against those of many other things involved in modernising Britain, on 2nd June, replying to a Question asked by me, he said that the Halsbury Committee had described the benefits of decimalisation as incapable of being measured? If that is so. how can we possibly decide what the priorities should be for decimalisation in the public investment programme?

The hon. Member raises an ingenious point, but the real point is that we cannot measure exactly many of these things. We can, and do, form a judgment as best we can about the relative costs and benefits of particular projects.

Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to ensure that in the next Conservative Party manifesto decimal coinage is mentioned, and will he challenge the parties opposite to declare their policy in regard to decimalisation, just as the parties in Australia did?

That is hardly a matter of Ministerial responsibility.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the cost of living is now at a record high level, what new policies Her Majesty's Government are now pursuing designed to reverse this trend.

The Government's financial policies are designed to combat the danger of cost and price inflation which is always present at a time of vigorous economic expansion. But success will depend also on co-operation by management and unions, especially in the matter of incomes policy.

Is the Chancellor aware that, whatever the policy might be, it has been a shocking failure? Is he not aware that during both stop and go periods throughout the lifetime of this Government the cost of living has gone steadily up and that, since January 1962, food prices have gone up by Is. 8d. in the £, while housing rents have gone up by 2s. 9d. in the £? When might we expect a reissue of the poster, "Mend a Hole in the Purse"?

While not accepting the hon. Gentleman's statistics—which I doubt are entirely accurate—I must say that we have made considerable progress, and are continuing to make progress, towards keeping prices stable, both in absolute terms and relative to other countries in Europe.

Is it not a fact that during the lifetime of this Parliament prices in Britain have risen less fast than prices in Holland, Germany, Italy and other European countries, and less than half as fast as in France and Japan, thereby making our rise in the cost of living the envy of our European rivals, which reflects a great deal to the credit of successive Chancellors in the last few years?

Certainly our prices recently have performed very well compared, for exmaple, with prices in other European countries. What is very important is that while our prices have risen, wages, salaries and social benefits have risen very much more.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that eyeshades and patches are exempt from Purchase Tax as are also certain non-proprietary eye lotions; and if he will arrange to extend such exemptions to include eye baths.

Some kinds of eyeshades and eye lotions are chargeable with Purchase Tax. Eye baths are chargeable as domestic toilet-ware, and I see no sufficient reason for altering that position.

What on earth is the use of exempting certain eye lotions if the right hon. Gentleman is not exempting the eye baths by which those lotions are to be applied? Is there any reason why an eye bath, which prevents or is intended to prevent and to cure eye difficulties, should not be exempt? Is this not all eyewash?

There is probably some eyewash about this on both sides of the House. Eye baths always have been taxable.

Why?

They just always have been. I might ask hon. Members—who, I believe, first included eye baths in the Schedule—Interruption.]—I am merely stating the historical facts. It is a fact that eye baths always have been taxable. I see no particular reason for altering the position, but, of course, one will always look into these matters when they are raised by hon. Members. However, I must repeat that at the moment I see no sufficient reason for altering the position.

Silly.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he made, when formulating his Budget proposals for 1963–64 and 1964–65, of the balance of payments surplus on an annual and a quarterly basis; and how the actual performance so far compares with these estimates.

The hon. Member will find in my Budget speeches what I can tell him about the balance of payments estimates which I took into consideration in formulating my Budget proposals. The out-turn for 1963 was published in the March issue of "Economic Trends" and that for the first quarter of 1964 will appear about the end of this month.

Is it not a fact that during the first three months of this year the trade deficit was running at an average annual rate of about £360 million a year, and is not this a very serious situation indeed? Will the Chancellor avoid the habit, which some of his supporters in the Press and the House adopt, of spreading sunshine stories when there is an isolated good month? Is it not the case that the good months are good only compared with the others, which are atrocious?

It is a mistake to be either too cast down by the bad months or too elated by the good ones. As to the first quarter of this year, the figures will be appearing in a few days' time. We have never disguised the fact that in the early stages of a programme of expansion, as we are now experiencing, we shall have some difficulties with our balance of payments.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the next Commonwealth Economic Conference to be held and, in view of the conflicts which have been revealed between the developing and developed countries attending the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, if he will take the opportunity at the Economic Conference to raise the role which the Commonwealth can play in helping to resolve such conflicts.

There will be a meeting of the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council in Kuala Lumpur shortly before the Bank and Fund meetings in Tokyo in September. It is customary for the host Government to propose the agenda, but if the United Nations Conference is discussed I will certainly bear the hon. Member's point in mind.

Despite his right hon. Friend having had success at the eleventh hour at Geneva in finding a formula which brought a good deal of unanimity in the final declaration of U.N.C.T.A.D., were there not revealed during the course of the conference very deep differences indeed between the developing and developed nations, and is not the Commonwealth in a unique situation—in combining both developed and developing countries in one organisation—and in a very good position to take the right sort of initiative in solving this fundamental problem?

I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman, and he will have observed that the success which my right hon. Friend had at the conference was very much attributable to the way in which he worked from the very beginning, and even before, in consultation with the Commonwealth countries.

Would my right hon. Friend make it clear that these subjects will, we hope, be discussed at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference at the beginning of July?

I cannot comment on the agenda for that conference or on that for the Kuala Lumpur conference, but these are obviously such important matters that I would be surprised if they were not discussed.

The Chancellor has rightly said that it was for the host Government to suggest the agenda. This will be the case at Kuala Lumpur, but why cannot Her Majesty's Government suggest that an item on the agenda at the forthcoming Prime Minister's Conference should be this subject?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and not for me, but I think the right hon. Gentleman can be certain that these matters will not be overlooked.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a security, in the form of a national equity, which would contractually commit the Government to pay an annual dividend which would be determined by the gross national product.

No, Sir.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great scope here for imagination on the part of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who wants to diversify the range of stock now available to investors, and especially Government stock, which is his responsibility? Is he aware that there is a special need to offer small investors in Government stock some measure of protection against current inflationary tendencies and at the same time offer them some hope of a share in future national prosperity?

These are very wide subjects, difficult to deal with in Question and Answer. The Question referred to a national equity. This is a misconception, because equity involves an element of risk which is not present in a Government-guaranteed security.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that savings are now 20 times higher than they were in 1951 and that these savings will increase, but only with the continuance of a Conservative Government?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that his powers are adequate to control foreign investment in British industry when the public interest requires that it should be so controlled; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir.

But will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider whether he is effectively exercising powers under the Exchange Control Act which was introduced by a Labour Government? Is he aware that in his statement on 8th June ho said that the Rootes family and their associates will continue to hold 50 per cent. of the voting shares, but is it not the case that the Rootes family and its associates held only 56 per cent. of the voting shares and as Chrysler has now already acquired 30 per cent. of the shares, does not this suggest that Chrysler will become very shortly the dominant shareholder in the Rootes company?

No, Sir. I think that the hon. Member will find that the facts as I set them out are quite accurate.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether under the Exchange Control Act Chrysler is prevented from acquiring further securities because of a legal sanction, or is it because it has entered into an undertaking with the Chancellor or with Rootes not to do that?

Chrysler entered into an undertaking with me. Before I gave my Answer of 8th June I had required an undertaking of that kind, which was part of my sanction of the deal.

Is it not a fact that if this undertaking were not kept through the sale by Rootes of shares to someone else there would be nothing in the Exchange Control Act to prevent Chrysler from purchasing shares and so acquiring control of Rootes?

I had thought of that one. I asked for and obtained an undertaking that the Chrysler Corporation would not acquire any more Rootes shares other than by means involving Treasury consent.

If this kind of investment is such a good thing, why does the right hon. Gentleman impose any restrictions on it at all?

Of all the questions that have come from the Opposition, that is about the silliest I have heard.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a committee to investigate to what extent the size and distribution of the staff of geological experts at the disposal of Government Departments and publicly-owned industries and services are adequate and effective.

No, Sir.

Is the Financial Secretary not aware of substantial evidence that if more geologists were employed, and if surveys were better co-ordinated, the Government and local authorities might save a substantial sum of money by avoiding mistakes in the construction of roads, hospitals, houses and other buildings, especially in areas of mining subsidence? If the hon. Gentleman is not acquainted with this fact, will he have a survey made of these areas to put himself in possession of considerable information?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a specific Question down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, but I have no reason to believe that the existing numbers and distribution of geologists give cause for concern, and I cannot accept the implications in his supplementary question.

Will the hon. Gentleman consult those responsible for organising, say, the Geological Survey and obtain their opinion on the matter?

Concern has already been expressed about this matter and consultations have been taking place. I see no reason to believe that there is a shortage or a maldistribution of these people.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to revive the machinery of post-war credits to collect sums from young people under 20 to be held for them until they are either 25 or are getting married, whichever is the earlier, in view of the fact that they are earning money which they do not know how to spend.

No, Sir.

Why, Sir?

Well, Sir, we do not believe that this is the correct way of getting young people to save.

Is not the proposal in the Question a gross infringement of private rights and are not the vast majority of young people perfectly responsible?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of financial assistance provided in the form of subsidies, grants, and loans to private industry and agriculture since 31st March, 1951; and what sums have been returned to Her Majesty's Government in capital or interest.

I am afraid that this information is not available in full. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the total annual figures which have been published in the Financial Secretary's Memorandum on the Estimates for payments of financial assistance from 1958–59 onwards, and for receipts of capital and interest from 1961–62 onwards. The figures of receipts for the years 1958–59 to 1960–61 are not immediately available, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman and let him have them as soon as I can.

Is not it a fact that something like £4,500 million in subsidy have been handed over to private enterprise in the last 13 years and that something like half that sum has been handed over since the last General Election? In view of the fact that this staggering sum of national assistance benefit has been handed over to private enterprise without any kind of control, does not the hon. Gentleman think it is time that the State had a voice in the affairs of concerns which are so heavily subsidised by taxpayer's money?

The hon. Member no doubt will like to know that the vast bulk of the money provided in this way has gone to agriculture. I have not heard any suggestions from hon. and right hon. Members opposite that agriculture should not be supported, and supported strongly. Perhaps the hon. Member would care to have a look at the figures before he comments so acidly on them.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that these sums which go to agriculture provide Britain with the cheapest food in Western Europe, give considerable help to our balance of payments position, and offer great social benefits to the country as a whole? Are we to understand from the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) that the Labour Party would do away with these subsidies?

In view of the Government's declared policy that State financial assistance should go only to those who need it, what steps do they intend to take to ensure that before farmers claim their subsidies they definitely need them? [AN HON. MEMBER: "Means test."] Of course, a means test. Is the Financial Secretary aware that this means test is applied to all National Assistance recipients, that it is applied to all recipients of welfare foods and all recipients of council house subsidies? Why should it stop there instead of being spread much further?

I admire the hon. Member's capacity to compare unlike with unlike.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number of persons who have any unearned income; and if he will express this figure as a percentage of all taxpayers.

I regret that this information is not available.

Would my hon. Friend agree that approximately 4 million people, or about 20 per cent. of the taxpayers of this country, have an unearned income? Is not this a satisfactory and growing increase? In view of the large number of people having an interest in this matter, would my hon. Friend consider circulating "Signposts for the Sixties" to the taxpayer through the Inland Revenue?

I am not sure that I can justify spending taxpayers' money in that way.

Will the hon. Gentleman ask his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) to stop using this term "unearned income" when he is referring to the savings of a great many small people and they find the use of this term by Tory Party propagandists very offensive?

I cannot help it if the hon. Member is offended by certain phrases which may be used in the House, but if he prefers the term "investment income" I do not mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cease to collect duty on cigarettes and tobacco consumed on lightships.

No, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend take another look at this matter? Is he aware that men who work on lightships work under very arduous and difficult circumstances, and that tobacco is almost part of the job—to keep them awake and happy? Would it not be possible, through Customs reliefs, to bring about an easy scheme to allow these men to have a certain amount of duty-free tobacco each time they go out to the lightships? Would he reconsider the question?

It is very hard to draw the line in these cases. No doubt these men have very arduous duties, but so have many others in different occupations. The line is drawn, at the moment, at ships going to foreign ports and to distant fishing-grounds. I will certainly look at the matter again, but I should not like to encourage my hon. Friend to think that I will make any move.

asked the Postmaster-General how many applications for domestic telephones remained unsatisfied at the latest convenient date in England and in Wales, respectively; and how those figures compare with those of a year ago.

Excluding those under inquiry or being met, the numbers of unsatisfied applications for telephone service in England and Wales at 31st March, 1964, were approximately 40,000 and 1,600, respectively. I am sorry that separate figures are not available for residence telephones. These waiting lists have remained virtually unchanged during the past year despite the record level of demand, which rose from 372,000 to 489,000 in England and from 16,000 to 20,000 in Wales. As the plans outlined in the recent White Paper "The Inland Telephone Service in an Expanding Economy" gather momentum, these waiting lists will steadily shrink until, by March 1966, they will have virtually disappeared.

asked the Postmaster-General what has been the result of the discussions between Ministers on educational television experiments of the kind devised by the Independent Television Authority and Queen's University, Belfast; and if he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend said on 2nd June in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), the discussions on educational broadcasting are still continuing.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Independent Television Authority has authorised quite a large amount of money for an experiment in this field? Can he explain why it is that if an experiment for pay television is allowed, perhaps for a less worthy cause, there should be such delay in authorising an experiment like this for educational purposes?

The inquiry that is being made has to look into many different points to decide what will be the whole point of educational programmes. As one has to decide the aims" and purposes, who would produce the programme, who would transmit it, who would pay for it, one needs a little more time to come to a final decision on the matter.

Cannot the Assistant Postmaster-General consider encouraging the Independent Television Authority to plan a series of programmes in Northern Ireland to show that the idea of basing political controversy on religious differences is foreign to British ideas of democracy?

The hon. Gentleman could probably do that better himself by paying a visit to Northern Ireland.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one can rehearse a joke too much?

asked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the high cost of a television aerial to obtain the new services and the extent of aerial required, he will introduce legislation to enable him to provide a piped service, especially on new housing estates, operating from a central British Broadcasting Corporation aerial.

No, Sir. I understand that the cost of a UHF aerial (including installation) is on average much the same as the cost of installing a VHF aerial. Piped services can, of course, be provided by relay companies or local authorities.

Does the hon. Gentleman know that this problem is facing every local authority because of the high cost of these aerials, which is between £30 and £40, and that we are handing to two large companies, in the main, Telefusion and Rediffusion, the monopoly of piping television to these people on housing estates? Does not he realise that this method of doing the work is taking away the freedom of the people in those houses to choose whether they want it or not and that Is. 2d. a week on their rent is a considerable charge for this service? Should not the G.P.O. be getting the profit rather than private enterprise?

I see the hon. Lady's point, because there will obviously be an increasing demand for a piped service or need for more and more aerials as more and more stations develop. It may be, therefore, that many more people will not want a complete Christmas tree on top of their houses. The difficulty is that we in the Post Office must, with our present resources, concentrate on developing the public telecommunications services. We are prepared to license both private companies and local authorities where they feel that there is a need to provide a piped service.

Has my hon. Friend worked out any estimate of by how much the licence fee would go up if this suggestion were taken note of?

No, Sir.

Does not the Assistant Postmaster-General realise that this is definitely a service which the G.P.O. should be giving to the public? Would not the profits which are obviously being made from this help in the other work which the G.P.O. is so anxious to do?

If there were any profits—

There must be.

that might be so. But, as the hon. Lady knows, the difficulty in many spheres of public activity is that we are using all the capital that we have available, and at present we feel that with the capital that we have available in the Post Office we are more justified in developing the telecommunications services so that the nation gets the service which it really deserves.

asked the Postmaster-General why a charge of 5s. 9d. is being made for the first day covers service by the Philatelic Bureau for the International Geographic Congress special issue of postage stamps when the value of the stamps is only 2s. 8½d., in view of the fact that the recent similar service for the Shakespeare Festival cost only 7s. 2d. for stamps to the value of 6s.

Because the standard of service we gave for the Shakespeare first-day cover was not as good as our customers wanted and what we should have liked to have given. With the new charge we expect, this time, to give them the service they want. For people who do not wish to pay the new charge, we are making the official envelope available unstamped at the price of 6d. so that they can prepare their own first-day cover.

Is it not the case that if postage stamps are bought from the Philatelic Bureau, the Postmaster-General is content to receive payment amounting only to the face value of the stamps, plus 3d. for postage, whereas if stamps of the forthcoming special issue, together with envelopes and the first-day-issue postmark, are bought, the charge for the envelope and servicing appears to be exorbitant? Is it not the case that the Postmaster-General is turning this very useful service into a profiteering racket?

No, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this was the first time we issued a full first-day cover where we were prepared to type the address and do the whole service, and all we endeavoured to do was to get a return that would cover our costs. In fact, with the demand there was for this new issue, the return did not cover our costs. This new figure we are now charging will, we hope, just about cover the costs on a normal issue.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Russians have a far better stamp than ours and do Shakespeare far more justice? Why is that?

I do not know

asked the Postmaster-General how many complaints both of injury caused by dogs and of difficulty in delivering mail he has had from postmen during the last five years.

These matters are dealt with locally and central records are not available but we estimate that there are about thirty cases of sick leave a year due to dog bites.

Has the hon. Gentleman taken any steps to inform householders that unless they keep their dogs in order and prevent the postmen from being injured or frightened mail will not be delivered?

Our postmasters have full authority, after due warning, to withhold delivery to the premises of any householder who takes no notice of warnings that are given.

asked the Postmaster-General if it is his intention to modify the numbering of postal districts when the London Borough of Waltham Forest is fully established; and what action he intends to take in respect of postal confusion arising from similar road names both in the area of that new borough and of other new London boroughs.

No, Sir; postal and local government boundaries do not necessarily coincide and we have no plans for altering the numbering of postal districts when the new Borough of Waltham Forest comes into being. I am not aware that similar road names are causing confusion at present; and we have no intention of making changes which would give rise to such confusion.

Would not the hon. Member look at this again? Is he aware that in the Waltham Forest area there are six or seven different postal regions? In those circumstances, would it not be better to try to make the postal regions co-terminous with the boundaries of the new borough? Is he not aware that both here and in other new boroughs there are roads with exactly the same names and that in spite of differences of postal designation, confusion arises? Should he not, therefore, take steps to try to avoid it?

Our main aim obviously is to give a good postal service at a reasonable cost. There will be many occasions on which the postal and local government boundaries do not coincide. We do not feel that it is necessary always to make them coincide when it would mean many people changing their addresses on envelopes without getting a better service as a result. If the hon. Member could give me the names of the streets which are confusing, I will certainly look at the point. He asked my right hon. Friend last year to look at it He has done so, and this Answer is based on the further consideration which he gave to it, following the promise to the hon. Member.