asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Finance Bill was not available for sale to the public in Manchester on Tuesday, 27th April, when it was available in London; and, in view of the importance of Manchester as a major commercial centre, if he will give an assurance that, in future, when Bills or other important documents are published, the provinces are treated no differently from London.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 3rd May to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern).

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many people in Manchester and district who are just about fed up with being treated as a second-class area compared with London—indeed, this applies to the provinces generally—and is it not time in this scientific age that the provinces were treated at least as fairly as London itself?

There is no desire to distinguish between the Metropolis and the provinces in this matter, but there are real practical difficulties both of Parliamentary Privilege and of the need for security. However, I am looking into this and doing all I can to eliminate as far as possible any gap between the time of publication in London and publication elsewhere. In most cases the gap is eliminated completely, but I am seeing what can be done in the other cases.

Will the Minister bear in mind the needs of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and district in this matter and look at the possibility of opening a retail sales office of Her Majesty's Stationery Office in this area?

That is a separate Question.

Would not the Financial Secretary agree that one of the main reasons for delay is that the Government keep putting down Amendments at such a substantially late hour?

It has nothing to do with Amendments. What we are dealing with here is publication of the Bill itself. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise the security considerations involved in the publication of a Finance Bill.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Stationery Office charge for a copy of the Finance Bill is 14s. for 226 pages, compared with 6s. for 104 pages in 1963 and 2s. 6d. for 39 pages in 1964; and to what extent this increase is due to higher costs and to higher profits, respectively.

Bills and other Parliamentary papers are priced to cover costs without making a profit. The 1965 Finance Bill costs more than those of 1963 and 1964 because it is longer and printing costs have gone up; but the price per page is lower than 1964.

While recognising that it would be ridiculous to expect the price of anything to go down under the present Administration, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that this is negligible compared with the ultimate harm which the Bill is likely to do to the country?

The hon. Member has not understood. The cost per page has gone down. This is an interesting example of the economies of scale.

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman calculated how much the Treasury could recoup if he collected together all the old copies of the Bill and of the Amendments which have been printed and sold them for salvage?

Another interesting fact is that this Bill has proved a best seller and that, despite our intention not to make profits, it looks as if we are going to make quite a bit.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much extra revenue he expects to receive in each of the next three financial years as a result of the increases in duties and taxes introduced in this year's Finance Bill.

At current levels of income and expenditure the yield of the measures in the Finance Bill is estimated at£164 million in 1965–66, and about£220 million in 1966–67 and£250 million in 1967–68.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of this extra revenue will be wasted in accordance with decisions taken by this Government since last October, and likely to be taken in the next few years, in ordering aircraft from abroad and ships from foreign yards?

I am glad to say that a large part of the extra revenue has been devoted to an increase in the old-age pension. As to future orders of aircraft, they will not enter into either the balance of payments or budgetary considerations for some time to come.

The Chancellor will be aware that we have information as to the amount of Capital Gains Tax to be derived from individuals. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the amount of tax which will be coming from companies via the medium of the Corporation Tax?

Not at the moment, but the total yield in 1966–67 will be some£10 million and in 1967–68£25 million.

I wish to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of his policy of curtailing overseas investment and spending, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the reduction of its expenditure overseas.

The Government's policy is to reduce the outflow of capital from this country in order to get the balance of payments right. So far as Government overseas expenditure is concerned, the policy is to reduce it where-ever possible.

Does not the Chancellor think that the time has come for deeds, not words? The Government are constantly exhorting other people to do these things, but all that we are told by Ministers is about endless reviews by Her Majesty's Government.

If the previous Administration had not allowed military and other expenditures to rise so rapidly, I would not now be in the difficulty of cutting them down.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much expenditure overseas will increase since the statement yesterday on overseas development?

Yes. The Answer was given yesterday. It is about£31 million for the United Nations. As far as interest-free loans instead of a waiver of interest are concerned, they will cost nothing.

Why does not the Chancellor take the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England and cut expenditure as the only way in which to get our balances right?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be emulating Rip van Winkle. The whole purpose of the Government exercise on overseas expenditure is to try to cut it down.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will direct the Royal Mint to double the number of shillings minted, and to make that fact well known so that the shilling may become a unit of currency once again in common use like the sixpence.

Twenty-four million shillings were issued in the first quarter of 1965, compared with30 million in the whole of 1964.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for about seven months in the year all the shillings seem to be tied up in gas, electricity and parking meters, and so on, and that if he looks in his pocket in the winter he will never find a shilling? Therefore, would the hon. Gentleman advise that during the winter period more shillings should be made available?

All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman has a better chance of finding a shilling in his pocket now than he had under the previous Government.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that although he may find a shilling in his pocket it is now worth a great deal less than it was?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many personnel are in the assessment branch of the Inland Revenue; and how many he anticipates will be required next year.

On 1st April, 1965, the staff of the branch concerned with the assessment of Income Tax and Profits Tax numbered 37,208. It is too early to make a reliable estimate of the number needed next year.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that the complications of the Finance Bill are likely to increase the correspondence of the Inland Revenue? Does he anticipate greater delays in getting agreement of assessments, and is he now in any difficulty concerning recruitment to the Inland Revenue?

I think that the Inland Revenue staff are well up to date with their work. There will, of course, be a considerable burden thrown upon them, particularly in the initial stages, as a result of the changes made in the Finance Bill, but additional staff are being recruited.

Has the hon. Gentleman not made any guess as to how many more staff he may require?

I do not think that it would help the House if I gave it guesses.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the use of National Insurance contributions as a means of regulating the economy both regionally and nationally.

I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind, although he will recognise the difficulty of making contributions vary, especially on a regional basis.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that one of the main difficulties that he has in controlling the economy is the time lag between the decisions which he takes and the effects produced? Would he not also agree that this investigation would be well worth while and will he say what steps are being taken to meet this point and how he intends to reduce the time lag between the decision and the effect?

That would not be wholly true of some of the measures of indirect taxation. This is not a question that I rule out. There is a review of the social services coming up; and although this facet of it would not be a major part of the review, I think it worth bearing in mind. But I would say to my hon. Friend that there are practical formidable difficulties in the matter.

Has my right hon. Friend considered the proposal that the National Insurance contribution should be varied according to income? Is he aware that the contribution bears heavily on the lower income group?

Yes, Sir, but I think that that is another Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in framing Her Majesty's Government's financial policy, what consideration he is giving to the financial implications of defence expenditure east of Suez.

The current review of our defence commitments, including those east of Suez, will take full account of the needs of the economic situation.

I am aware of the defence review, but would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is not enough simply to make small cuts by way of cost efficiency and that what is needed is cuts in our commitments? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friends particularly about cutting the commitments of our defence rôle east of Suez?

I think that it would be wrong—and this is in part an answer to questions which were asked earlier—to make forecasts about cuts in commitments until a very thorough examination of the whole position has been undertaken. It is for that reason that it is simply not possible to make swift, slashing cuts in overseas expenditure.

When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to tell the House that the review is concluded? How long have we to wait?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I certainly hope that it will be the autumn.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in carrying out the review of public service and Armed Forces pensions; and how soon he expects to make an announcement.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) on 14th June.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when the Prime Minister was seeking votes at the time of the election he gave a pledge that public service and Armed Forces pensions would keep their full purchasing power? Is he aware that the cost of living has already gone up 4 per cent. under the present Government and that if he does not do something soon the very severe hardship already occurring for these people will get quite out of hand?

The hon. Member will be aware that complicated questions are involved here. All are being considered. Meanwhile we tackled first things first by giving an immediate substantial increase through the National Insurance pension which benefits the vast majority of public service pensioners.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say when are we likely to get the next Pensions (Increase) Bill?

No, Sir, I cannot give any date.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the considerable hardship caused to some of these Service pensioners and will he be less callous in his answers and more sympathetic to their needs?

I am not callous. I am sympathetic. I am aware of their problems and particularly of the problems of those who are not covered by the National Insurance pensions increase.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what prior consultations he had with other countries in the sterling area and the Commonwealth before instructing the Bank of England to issue the new exchange control regulations on 7th April; and what subsequent communications on this subject he has received from them.

In accordance with normal practice the other countries in the sterling area and the Commonwealth were informed immediately the changes which I announced in the Budget were made in United Kingdom exchange control. It has never been the practice to consult them in advance.

I have had no communications from the Governments concerned. There has been correspondence between the Treasury and Bank of England and some of the exchange control authorities concerned in regard to details of the arrangements.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that these ill-conceived regulations may well force Bermuda and the Bahamas to leave the sterling area? Would he be prepared to give an estimate of the effect on our sterling balance if they left?

If any area was exempted this would enable United Kingdom residents to use nominees in that area for their investments and thus evade the new rules. As the rules are already beginning to add to the strength of our resources, I hope that the hon. Member will not press me to take any steps which would weaken them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider associating other Commonwealth sterling area countries with the management of the sterling area? Should not they be more closely associated in these days?

There is frequent contact between the central banks in the other parts of the sterling area and the Bank of England, as there is between myself and the Commonwealth Finance Ministers at regular intervals.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to replace investment allowances by discriminatory investment grants.

My hon. Friend's suggestion will be considered in the current review of investment allowances announced in my Budget speech.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the relationship between investment and investment allowances is at best a most haphazard one? Will he tell us when he expects the revision to be complete and whether that will include investment grants or allowances which will be more discriminating in their effect, more widely understood and more immediate in their application?

I was very impressed by my hon. Friend's speech on Tuesday on Clause 52 of the Finance Bill. I accept what he said then and repeat it now. We are getting on with the review and we will take all considerations into account in seeing whether we can proceed with a new system.

How is the discussion with the Minister of Technology getting on following the review of the machine tool industry? If we are likely to have the setback referred to in Question No. 11, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), is not it important to get the new capital allowances in being by October if possible?

My relations with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology are, as always, cordial and I assure the hon. Member that we are working in full co-operation on this matter.

Does the Chancellor agree with the statement made by the Chief Secretary that the effect of Corporation Tax will be approximately to double the incentive for firms to invest in development districts?

I never find it necessary to disagree with my right hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the industrial investment boom may ease off by the end of the year, what new steps are being taken to meet the economic setback which will result; and if he will make a statement.

I explained in my Budget speech the need to make room in the economy for the progressive improvement in the balance of payments which is our overriding immediate objective. The measures I have taken can of course be modified at any time, one way or the other, by adjustment of fiscal and monetary policy.

If the improvement in our position is satisfactory to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which we all hope it will be, why is he going to America to try to borrow a further 2 billion dollars to help stabilise sterling this autumn? Is such a large extra loan necessary if our position is improving?

The hon. Member is a very useful means of denying this foolish rumour for which he has no authority. I am going to Washington, as has already been announced, to discuss further progress with international liquidity. That was the original purpose of the visit, and it is still the main purpose of the visit.

Do not the constant moanings of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) exercise a depressing effect on our foreign balance of trade?

I am inclined to think that that must be a matter of opinion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for Inland Revenue offices to remain open outside normal working hours on certain days of the week in order that inquiries may be made without forfeiting working time.

No, Sir; but interviews can be arranged by appointment outside the hours when offices are open to the public.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he intends to put forward for improving international liquidity at the International Monetary Fund meeting next September.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of his discussions with the French Minister of Finance about international liquidity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what talks he has held with the French Government on problems of world liquidity; and what has been their outcome.

I had a useful exchange of views with the French Finance Minister last week, and international discussions continue in the Group of Ten and the International Monetary Fund. Progress can only be made by agreement, and I hope to continue discussions with the United States Secretary to the Treasury next week.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that on his forthcoming visit to Washington this matter has first priority and is not a subject which will be put rather low down on the agenda? Will he see whether it is possible to work out some form of joint agreement with the Americans on this problem as a joint approach?

I hoped that I had already made it clear, and I make it clear again, that this is the main subject of discussion next week and is a follow-up of discussions which we have already had. But I emphasise that there is not a lot of point in two or three nations agreeing on what they would like to do. There must be a unanimous move forward if there is to be an increase in liquidity or a reconstruction of the world monetary system. This is why my purpose is not to take up a fixed position or to put forward a grand new plan, of which there are at least a dozen in existence, but to try and see whether the various different elements which exist at present can be brought together and synthesised.

I welcome the Chancellor's talks with the French Finance Minister but may one assume that, in his forthcoming talks in Washington, he will tend to support the French position?

No, Sir; it would be wrong for me to say that. The principle upon which this country has acted is one which I would propose to continue, namely, to build upon the International Monetary Fund in the first place. That is where we should start from.

When the Chancellor returns from Washington, will he take an early opportunity to inform the House, either by statement or by White Paper, exactly where the Government themselves stand after this series of meetings on the question of arrangements for international liquidity? Does the Chancellor realise that there is a Bill at present before the House which is very much concerned with these matters and which remains to be debated, but it will not be possible for the House to debate it adequately unless we have much more knowledge about the Government's own position?

I shall consider that. It is no use publishing a White Paper unless there is a good deal to say, but I shall certainly consider either making a statement or in some other way indicating the position reached in international discussions as well as Her Majesty's Government's own position.

While accepting that unanimity is certainly the most desirable goal to attain, will my right hon. Friend not agree that, in the event of failure to reach such unanimity, encouragement of a large number of bilateral swap arrangements could be second or third best?

Bilateral swap arrangements have had a very useful part to play, but I want to see arrangements for increasing liquidity put upon a more permanent basis, if that is possible.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what claims against Income Tax can be made by travel agents or tour operators who fly holidaymakers to their destinations free of charge and only require payment for hotel accommodation.

Travel agents and tour operators are chargeable to Income Tax according to the normal rules and are entitled to allowances, reliefs and deductions on the same basis as other traders.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many holidaymakers recently let down by a leading tour operator have been told by this tour operator that they have no redress on the question of delay in air travel because of Income Tax concessions which have been given to it by the Treasury?

I am quite unaware of that. If my hon. Friend will give me details, I shall be glad to look into it. I do not see how there can be any basis for such a statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has decided to allow Government Departments to deduct the trade union dues of public servants from their salaries or wages.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions have been given to Government Departments about the deduction of union contributions from wages and salaries; and whether this includes deductions designed for political purposes.

This facility is increasingly being given by outside employers in the interests of good staff relations. My right hon. Friend saw no reason to refuse the national staff side when it asked for it. For those associations which have a political fund, arrangements are being made to ensure that Departments shall not know the numbers or identities of members contributing to the political levy. No instructions have yet been sent to Departments because the detailed operation of the scheme has not yet been settled with the staff side.

Is it not wrong for Her Majesty's Government to act as the collecting agency of a trade union in this way, and it is not wrong for them to set a bad example to private industry, increasing the scope of the American practice of the check-off which is widely discredited?

I do not see anything wrong in a procedure which saves time and increases efficiency. Its virtues are being recognised increasingly by the private sector of industry and by public authority employers. We are not setting an example here; we are following a lead given by others.

Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that this practice, by which civil servants have their trade union contributions deducted from pay by the Government, was adopted during wartime? If it was, what is wrong with it being done in peace-time?

My hon. Friend has a great deal more knowledge than I have of what the practice in these matters was during the war, but I entirely agree with him in seeing nothing wrong in this and everything to be said for it.

If there is a difference between the dues collected from different individuals because of their contributions to the political levy, depending upon whether they contribute or not, how can the Minister in those circumstances pre- vent those in the Department who handle these matters knowing exactly who is paying and who is not?

I am happy to explain that. There will not be a difference in the amount of the deduction. Where there is a political contribution or political levy made, the same amount will be deducted from everyone but the arrangement come to is that the associations will be required to pay the political element in that deduction in advance to their contracted-out members who join the scheme. It will be an entirely voluntary scheme. No one will be compelled to suffer deduction unless he wants to. But the associations will, as it were, repay in advance the amount of the political levy to those who have contracted out. In this way no one will be put out of funds at all and the Department will not be in a position to know who has contracted out and who has not.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there are many different amounts and levies in trade union contributions and it would, therefore, be rather difficult for any Government Department to know precisely what was for the political levy and what was not? Second, has he noted that, although this practice is now widespread in private enterprise, we have never heard any cry from the benches opposite on that account?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's second point. As I have explained, the steps we have taken will ensure that there is no means by which Departments can know whether or not members have contracted out.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, following the passage of the Finance Bill, he will publish a booklet explaining to taxpayers their obligations.

The Board of Inland Revenue will issue explanatory booklets on the taxation of capital gains and on the Corporation Tax.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply and I look forward to this publication. Will he ensure that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have a copy, even if it is provided free, so that they may be fully acquainted in particular with the Amendments which they have put down and which my right hon. Friend has agreed to?

I should like to consider that, although, in the interests of economy, it would perhaps be better to send copies of the booklet to a large number of the companies which may have been misled by some of the propaganda which the party opposite has put out.

In preparing this booklet, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consult leading members of the Opposition Front Bench so that something sensible and clear can be written?

I am glad to say that I have received considerable help from the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who issued a corresponding booklet after the enactment of the short-term Capital Gains Tax.

Does the Chancellor realise that the country and industry in particular thoroughly agree with what his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) said, that if there are any misunderstandings about this Finance Bill in industry and financial circles, the Government have only themselves to blame?

My hon. Friend has made so many speeches that I never know whether I am to listen to the ones in which he praises me or those in which he attacks me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, when an inquiry is made into the Income Tax affairs of a taxpayer and nothing is found to be out of order, the taxpayer is called upon to pay the costs of the inquiry.

The Inland Revenue neither claims nor reimburses expenses relating to inquiries. I do not think that such expenses should be treated differently from other expenses connected with tax affairs.

Is it not an offence against the sense of natural justice that, when an inquiry is forced upon a taxpayer and no cause for complaint is found, he should be charged with the expenses? Ought they not to be borne by the Department?

It does not always follow, if an inquiry proves abortive, that the Revenue was not justified in taking it up. But the real point involved here is that, if the taxpayer is to claim where the inquiries prove abortive, the corollary of that, presumably, is that the Revenue should claim where they prove to have been justified. I think that it is better to follow the example laid down in our law in regard to proceedings before the Income Tax Commissioners who have no power to award costs. This question was considered by the Royal Commission, which recommended against any award of costs being made.

Is it not clear that if the Inland Revenue has to bear no part of the cost whether the inquiry is abortive or not, it will he inclined to institute an order and enforce inquiries where there is only a marginal case to answer? Is it not desirable that the Inland Revenue should recover its costs where it is proved to be correct and should fail to charge people where they are found to be blameless?

It is not right to say that the Inland Revenue bears no part of the costs. It bears its own costs. It has far too much to do to enter lightheartedly upon frivolous investigations.

Will my hon. and learned Friend look into the matter again? After all, if the Inland Revenue discovers that it has made a justifiable claim, the Exchequer receives additional revenue. So what has it to complain about? On the other hand, if the inquiry is abortive and it is demonstrated that the person concerned has not been guilty in any way, why should he be mulcted of costs?

When the Inland Revenue receives revenue, it does not receive any additional sum related to the costs of the inquiry which may have been rendered necessary. But if my right hon. Friend or the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) have specific cases that they would like to bring to my attention for me to look into, I should be glad to do so. I have stated the principle. I cannot see any justification for changing it, but should be glad to reconsider the matter in the light of particular cases.

If it be true that the investigation should never have been undertaken, is it not only fair to the individual citizen that he should be released from any costs?

The point that I made originally was precisely that—which I think anyone familiar with legal matters would certainly agree with—the fact that an investigation does not result in a claim for tax does not mean that it was not rightly undertaken.

Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman go halfway in the matter? Under Schedule D, if there is an inquiry the cost of it to the taxpayer can be set against profits. This is not the case with Schedule E. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman look at it in this sense and go halfway and allow the costs of an inquiry to be set off against the Schedule E assessment?

I should certainly like to look into that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increasing demand for mortgages, he will now lift the£5,000 limit imposed upon the sums that can be invested in building societies on normal terms.

The initiative for making such a change would normally come from the Building Societies Association. No approach has been received.

As this limit has been applied now for some decades, if an approach is made in the future will the right hon. Gentleman look at it sympathetically?

Yes, Sir, certainly; but I think that a number of individuals invest in more than one society, and, therefore, the limit is not as real as it might seem.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in present circum- stances, where the demand for funds for home lending far exceeds the supply of money available, it is rather unrealistic to fix a rather low limit of this kind, particularly in view of the depreciation in the value of money since it was fixed? Would not£7,500 or£10,000 be more realistic?

I am sure that the Building Societies Association will note the hon. Gentleman's question. I should be happy to receive an approach, although I could not indicate now what the answer would be. However, I should be glad to look at anything which is put to me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of Her Majesty's Government's commitment to the introduction of metric weights and measures, he will now introduce legislation providing for decimal currency at the earliest possible date.

My right hon. Friend has this matter under active consideration but he is not yet ready to make a statement.

Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman had the matter under consideration for quite some time? Does he recall that on 9th March the Chancellor said in reply to a similar Question that the Government should make up their mind? What is the reason for this inordinate delay if the Government really meant what they said about modernisation at the time of the election?

I do not agree that the delay is inordinate. This is one of many matters that we have to consider, and it is a complicated matter. It is being considered.

Is it not a fact that up to the present the country as a whole has not shown itself prepared to accept the new system and that it is only the eggheads who favour it?

One of the difficulties is that even the eggheads are not agreed on how it should be done.

Would my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that industry is very much in favour of it, that it would help our exports, and that it is a matter of urgency that the Government should make up their mind and tell the country what their decision is?

I remember my hon. Friend's interest in the subject the last time it was raised.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make provision for an increase, to take account only of the cost of living, in the salaries of civil servants receiving mark-time salaries following their transfer to lower graded positions in consequence of redundancy agreements; whether he is aware that certain existing agreements involve considerable hardship on the part of the older civil servants so affected; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir.

In view of the rather unsatisfactory answer to the Question, is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, under the arrangements negotiated with the Treasury, in Departments where there is reorganisation and consequent redundancy and down-grading, some people are in the position that they will get no increase whatsoever to take account of the increased cost of living for many years? Will he note that one particular case that I have in mind is that of a gentleman who was formerly in a grade receiving£1,426 per annum and is retaining that amount on a personal basis but is now in a grade with a maximum of£900, which means that he will have no increase for many years?

Write a letter!

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to lose sight of the basic principle that an employee in a given job should have the rate for the job. What he is referring to is a special concession in order to avoid an actual drop in take-home pay for someone who has been transferred to other employment at a lower rate. This enables him to retain his former rate. One has also to bear in mind the person's position in relation to someone who has served throughout in the grade concerned.

Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that salary and wage matters should be adjusted through the established trade union machinery and not the Order Paper of the House of Commons?

Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that when the mark-time salaries were originally introduced into the system it was not envisaged that anybody would be on them for more than two or three years? Is he aware that in present conditions there are people who are having to face being on them for eight to ten years, and that is a long time to go without any increase when the cost of living is going up?

I think that the position of such people in their new job must be considered in relation to the people who have been in that job possibly for an equivalent period.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under his regulations and the practice of the Revenue, the cost of newspaper advertisements of the texts of speeches of chairmen of public companies can be set off against the companies' Income and Profits Tax, even where a large proportion of the speech may be concerned to make political propaganda.

Reprinting statements by company chairmen at annual general meetings is an accepted form of advertising, and the cost is generally admissible as a business expense for tax purposes. Reflections on Government policies are a not unusual feature of such statements. I do not think the public in general find it difficult to see them in their proper perspective.

Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise that, while that may well be so, it is no defence and no argument for allowing it for Income Tax and Profits Tax purposes? Did he read carefully the example which I sent to the Department, and does he recognise that there is an increasing tendency for chairmen of companies to engage in political propaganda and charge it against their tax assessments? Will he take steps at least to judge each case on its merits, and if there is political propaganda, ensure that it is not chargeable against tax?

Yes, Sir; I read the statement concerned. I also noticed that, in spite of the somewhat gloomy statements by the chairman of the company, he found time to tell his shareholders that in the first quarter of this year the results of the company's efforts had been, I think, 17·5 per cent. better than during the equivalent period last year.

Is the Financial Secretary correct in standing up to his hon. Friend and defending the right of his former supporter, the chairman of Booker Bros., to attack the Government when he can no longer support them?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for again giving me an opportunity to bring to the attention of the public what the Press chose not to do, namely, the additional statement made by the chairman that the concessions which had been added to the Order Paper by my right hon. Friend had met his points.

Surely it would not tax the ingenuity of the Inland Revenue to eliminate that part of a company report critical of the Government, making it not deductible?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration has been given to the transfer of the Mint from London to Scotland, as part of the policy of redistribution of industry.

The question of altering the location of the Mint is closely bound up with that of decimalisation which is now under active consideration.

My hon. and learned Friend referred to "decimalisation", which has confused me a little. Would not he consider that in the redistribution of enterprises and the diversification of industry in Scotland the removal of the Mint from London to Scotland would be a gesture that would be appreciated there? It is the sort of industry and enterprise—manufacturing money—thatwe could well do with in Scotland.

My hon. Friend asked first whether the Mint could be removed from London. It is here that the question of decimalisation is relevant because additional coinage facilities would certainly be required if decimalisation were introduced. If the question does arise of moving the Mint out of London then, of course, the demands of Scotland, like those of other parts of the country, will be carefully considered.

Would we get more shillings if the Mint were moved to Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman is insatiable. However, the longer the Government remain in power the greater chance of his finding more and more shillings in his pocket.

In view of the number of daring robberies in London—including one within half a mile of this place—would it not be safer to put the Mint in Scotland?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what annual increase has taken place in Government expenditure since 1951; and what increase in revenue from Purchase Tax, Income Tax, and company taxation has taken place over the same period.

Between 1951–52 and 1964–65 the average annual increase in Supply expenditure was£228 million, or 4·8 per cent.; the average annual increase in revenue from the taxes referred to by my hon. Friend was£143 million or 4·4 per cent. I will with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving more detailed information.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does it not seem to indicate that in the past 13 years the increased revenue collected because of increased Government expenditure has been imposed more and more, relatively, on the lower income groups and on individuals rather than upon companies? Will he immediately convey to the people that the Finance Bill is a Measure to try to redress the balance and that the Opposition are trying to keep heavy taxation on individuals and to relieve companies?

We must keep a balance between securing a proper contribution by companies to the national Revenue and not impairing their commercial efficiency. But my hon. Friend will see from the table that whereas the percent-

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many estates have been accepted by the Treasury during the past five years in lieu of death duties; and what was their value.

Fourteen estates valued at£416,261 were accepted by the Treasury in satisfaction of Estate Duty during the five years ended 31st March, 1965.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for those figures. Do not they indicate a certain reluctance on the part of his Department to accept land in lieu of death duties? Can he assure us that no opportunity is lost to acquire land which will give the public greater means of access to areas of natural beauty?

There is no reluctance involved. We are dependent on the number of estates offered. A few offers have been rejected because the property concerned did not appear to age of increased revenue from Income Tax and Surtax on persons has gone up by 129 per cent. in that period the percentage decrease in company taxation has been 3 per cent.

What proportion has been paid out by the National Land Fund? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the Fund is being used according to the intention of the late Lord Dalton?

There is not a proportion. In every case the amount of Estate Duty is refunded to the Inland Revenue from the Land Fund.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the fall in productivity during recent months while the index of industrial production has remained static.

The index of industrial production has not remained static. It rose by 2 per cent. between the third and fourth quarters of 1964 and by a further 1 per cent. in the first four months of 1965. There is no evidence of a fall in productivity.

But in the spring months of February and March production was almost static and unemployment was going down. Surely there must have been a fall in national productivity.

It is a little unwise to judge these figures over the short period of a month. It is far better to take the trend over a longer period. That, measured against the number of men at work and the decrease in working hours, shows no fall in productivity so far.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the First Secretary of State on 14th April about prices and incomes to the Scottish Trades Union Congress represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the First Secretary of State said that the Government had no intention of running a policy of wage restraint? How can one possibly have an incomes policy which does not include an element of wage restraint?

There is rather a big difference here. I have seen what is perhaps a rather fuller account of what my right hon. Friend said than appeared in the Press. His main theme was that economic planning required the planning of incomes but that the Government had no intention of running a wage restraint policy on its own, for the important thing was that it must be part of a general incomes policy. I think that previous attempts to have a wage restraint policy broke down because of the lack of fairness. They were not applied to prices and to other forms of income.

asked the Prime Minister if Great Britain still has a stockpile of nuclear weapons.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 17th June.

In view of the international situation and our overseas obligations, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not hand over this stockpile of nuclear weapons to any other country or organisation?

In successive Questions week after week I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman what our policy is. We intend to internationalise the so-called independent deterrent through our proposals in Europe and we hope to be able to work out something for the wider obligations to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Does it also apply to our forces east of Suez?

We welcome the right hon. Gentleman back from his visit abroad. If he had heard what I said last week on this subject he would know the answer. The reference in the last few words of my reply was to our obligations east of Suez.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the holding of independent stocks of nuclear weapons can only lead to proliferation? Is he aware that we, on this side of the House at any rate, welcome the policy of internationalising these weapons as being the same thing as preventing proliferation, which is the only thing which can lead to the total disappearance of these weapons from the world?

I made it clear the last time we debated the relevance of this to international schemes to stop proliferation that this is one of the main things in our minds in putting our proposals forward.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that, both with regard to the degree of our nuclear strength and to the extent of our national control over it, the situation remains the same today as it was when the Government took office?

Yes, Sir. Of course, so far we have not reached agreement on our proposal to internationalise our nuclear strength. I would add that the international strength that the party opposite led the country to believe we had and what we found actually existed are two very different things.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that internationalisation does not affect the fact that we own and will continue to own nuclear weapons or that we own and will continue to own the means of delivery?

That is the position about ownership, but they will be committed, and committed irrevocably, to N.A.T.O. so long as N.A.T.O. lasts.

Can the Prime Minister tell us to whom the proposals to internationalise nuclear weapons east of Suez have been made, what the current state of those proposals is, and what progress the Government are making with them?

They are at an early stage yet for reasons which I have previously explained to the House. This is tied up very much with the anxiety of a number of countries, shall we say, east of Suez about the development of the Chinese nuclear device and the need to provide some kind of international assurance to those countries.

The House should be clear about this matter. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain it a little further? I thought he said that we would retain bomber capacity in the Far East with nuclear capacity. Are those bombers, therefore, to be included in the Atlantic Nuclear Force and be internationlised as well?

Bombers east of Suez are not kept in the Atlantic Nuclear Force, which is in Europe, of course. I would have thought that that was a fairly simple proposition. The right hon. Gentleman misled the country about the extent of our nuclear forces, but any forces east of Suez, as I have said, are a matter for whatever international arrangements we can make in that area.

asked the Prime Minister what are the duties of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is assisted by two Parliamentary Secretaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has a special responsibility for industrial training and his other duties include matters relating to general employment and disabled persons. I have also asked him to assist my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology with Parliamentary business in this House. The duties of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) cover the rest of the Ministry of Labour's work, including industrial relations, the Factories Act and related legislation, and women's employment.

Is not the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) more or less full-time employed in the Ministry of Technology? Would it not be much better if he were switched to that Ministry, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Technology finds Parliamentary business so distasteful?

The hon. Gentleman must get over this little obsession of his. I am sure that when he comes to consider this matter he will realise that in the whole question of technological development and the automative revolution there is nothing more important than that technical developments should be related to human factors and that the relationship of those developments to training and training facilities is fundamental if we are to avoid disaster. It is therefore extremely useful that there should be a member of the Ministry of Labour staff having this very close link with technology.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his confirmation that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has special responsibility for industrial training will be widely welcomed in the North-East? Is he aware that his hon. Friend's recent visit to that area has been described to me by local industrialists as extremely useful? The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) may not appreciate this, but we in the North-East do.

In view of the Prime Minister's statement that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) is primarily concerned with industrial training, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that while in the last six months of the previous Government a Central Training Council and four industrial training boards were set up, since then only one additional board has been established?

In the thirteenth year of the last Government they began to do something. In the first month of this Government my hon. Friend was able to devote himself to this problem almost full time. A great deal of progress has been made and I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) is not aware of it. There have been a number of important announcements on that subject from the Ministry today.