asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Government's desire to encourage decimalisation, he will mint more florins and cease to mint half-crowns.

The recent announcement of my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, referred only to the metric system, and not to decimalisation, which is still under consideration. Meanwhile, the Mint will continue to meet the demand for half-crowns as well as for florins.

May I remind the Financial Secretary that, as long ago as 1849, when the florin was introduced, it was said to be a first-step in decimalisation, and was actually described officially as one-tenth of a £? Will he not try to see if we can have some progress on this matter, now that yet another Commonwealth country has gone decimal? Does he recall what Mr. Gladstone said on this in 1854?

As we are having exercises in history, may I remind my hon. Friend that in 1849 minting of half-crowns ceased with the introduction of the florin? The demand for half-crowns continued to prove so great that minting was resumed in 1874. The two coins at the moment are about equally popular. If a decision in favour of decimalisation is taken, the matter will have to be reconsidered, and no doubt the florin would then replace the half-crown.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of exempting from Income Tax refreshment and subsistence allowances paid to members of a police force in respect of overtime duty at their usual police station.

I am afraid that sufficient information on which to base an estimate is not available.

Regardless of the amount involved, may I ask whether the Financial Secretary is aware that until recently these trifling sums have been treated as free of tax? If he is going to alter that situation and make them liable to tax in the future, will he be consistent and consider the position on such things as concessionary coal to area chairmen and entertainment allowances to leaders of the nationalised industries as well?

The position is that some local authorities have all along, quite properly, been making deductions for tax. Others have not, and I think that what has given rise to the hon. Gentleman's Question is that the proper practice is now being applied uniformly. One has to compare the position of these payments in favour of police officers with any other form of remuneration which is paid to people who spend money on a meal during the course of their employment. One cannot make out a case for special treatment for police officers in this respect.

Would not the Financial Secretary agree that this problem could be overcome, because in industry one can have luncheon vouchers which are exempt from taxation? Surely, so far as refreshment for the police force is concerned, could not the problem be overcome by an issue of luncheon vouchers, for spending in canteens?

That is a matter for the local authorities to consider. The luncheon voucher system was introduced, as the hon. Gentleman knows, during the war as a sort of supplement to, and in some cases a replacement of, the meals provided by employers in canteens.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet in a position to make a statement on his Budget proposal to allow local authorities in the less prosperous areas to secure better access to finance from the Public Works Loan Board.

As I announced on 19th July, local authorities in Scotland, Wales and the Northern and North-West Regions of England will be able to get 40 per cent. of their longer-term borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board this year.

Could my hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that that still applies, notwithstanding the announcement of the Chancellor last week?

Yes, that still applies.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that statement, as it stands, is not in conformity with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised for special areas, with which I am concerned? Is he further aware that there has been a reduction in the amount promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will the Chancellor take the opportunity in his next Budget to ensure that the special areas get the full amount promised to them? It is very awkward to have a promise made to the special areas which is not fulfilled.

The hon. Lady is insatiable for budgets. We argued this matter when debating the Public Works Loans Bill. I cannot accept what the hon. Lady said. My right hon. Friend made it quite clear in his original statement that he was allowing only £40 million for this purpose and that, as a result of that, the percentage rate of access that followed must depend upon the definition of the areas.

The right hon. Gentleman could not calculate.

Will the Financial Secretary now explain why the Chancellor said in his statement that some local authorities were going to get up to 50 per cent., whereas the position is that there is not one local authority in this country which will be able to obtain 50 per cent.?

I have explained the matter very fully, and I would refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said during the debate on the Public Works Loans Bill.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to improve the general level of savings in the country.

The general level of savings remains high. I am always considering new measures to increase it, and for this reason I announced a new type of Post Office investment account with a higher rate of interest in my Budget statement.

Was not that a rather complacent reply? Is the Chancellor aware that in the figures published yesterday, National Savings showed a net deficit over the period this year equivalent to that of last year, of about £85 million? When this is taken with the falling-off of private investment, referred to by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, and dodged by the Chancellor, is not this an indication of a total loss of confidence in the Government's financial policy, and is not the best way to restore that confidence for the Government to resign?

I am sure that that will make a good speech in the constituencies, but I am dealing with the Question on the Order Paper. The general level of savings in the country remains high. Because of competition from other forms of savings, the level of National Savings has, unfortunately, not proved to be as high as I would certainly like.

Why?

Because the rates of interest being offered by other institutions are higher. That is the reason. I repeat my statement, that the general level remains high.

Despite the party political points made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, would not my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in the level of National Savings is of urgent and vital importance, and would he consider appointing a super-salesman to sell savings throughout the country?

I was very glad indeed to ask and to have Sir Miles Thomas accept my invitation to be Chairman of the National Savings Committee. I know of few salesmen who are better than he at this particular job.

The Chancellor is surely being less than fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), who asked this Question. This is not a constituency point at all. It is a matter of national importance. Would the right hon. Gentleman now explain why today he says that there are so many competing markets for savings? How many new ones are there which were not available last year? Why is it that building society savings, unit trust savings, National Savings and investment trust savings, are all down? Surely, as my hon. Friend says, there is a lack of confidence in the Government, because people are inclined to wonder if it is worth saving money?

Order. The question of whether or no there is a lack of confidence in the Government must be a question of opinion and for that reason it is out of order. It was in the original supplementary question, and in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question now. Let us get on.

The proportion of personal disposable income—which is the phrase used—saved is 7·9 per cent. in the first quarter of 1965. If the hon. Gentleman would stop making party points and help savings we would all get on a lot better.

Order. There is quite a lot of noise going on which is quite irrelevant. I hope that it will not continue.

In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the Chancellor's reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on another occasion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the purchasing power of public service pensions has declined since September, 1964.

By about 4½ per cent.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that on 11th September, 1964, the Prime Minister gave a pledge that the Service pensioners and public service pensioners would not have the full purchasing power of their pensions eroded as a result of Government action? Is the further aware that that pledge had a great effect on a great many pensioners when they cast their votes in the last election? Is it not time that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave an indication when he will do something to redeem that pledge?

I must invite the hon. Gentleman to await the Queen's Speech at the opening of the next Session of Parliament.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that public service pensioners would feel a lot more patient in waiting for the Government to do something if the Government showed a little more fairness in dealing with the increase in wages?

I would point out that pensioners had to wait for a longer period between the last two pensions (Increase) Acts of the previous Government.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that an abnormally high proportion of the public service pensioners live in Weymouth and along the south coast of England? Is he further aware that, as the Allen Report showed, these are the areas where rates are also abnormally high? If he cannot fulfil one pledge, will he fulfil the other?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement about public service pensioners.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date he expects the review of public service pensions to be completed.

While I cannot anticipate the contents of the Queen's Speech today, the Government are giving active and sympathetic consideration to these problems.

Is not the Financial Secretary aware that there is a Motion on the Order Paper, which has more signatures to it than any other Motion, which urges immediate action on this matter? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied to allow us to go away for the Recess without making a further and better statement?

As I have already indicated, I do not propose to make any further statement in anticipation of the Queen's Speech.

While recognising the inadequacy of the provision made by the previous Government, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend to recognise that there is genuine hardship among many of these public service pensioners? Will he give serious consideration in the review to accepting the principle of parity of entitlement of these people even though it is recognised that it cannot be given full application immediately?

We certainly are taking into consideration sympathetically all aspects of this problem in the review which has been referred to in many Questions of this kind. As my hon. Friend will know, we made it clear before the election that there could be no question of parity being implemented in full at once. It would be quite impossible for financial considerations in the early stages of this Government.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that having said that he must not anticipate the Queen's Speech, he is talking nonsense, because we have it on the authority of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that there is no need to take any notice of what is in the Queen's Speech and that the fact that something is included in the Queen's Speech does not necessarily mean that it will be done during the Session?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers employed through labour-only sub-contractors in the engineering and building industries are listed as self-employed; and what is the estimated loss to the revenue arising from these taxpayers being listed as self-employed and not as employed persons.

I regret that the information is not available. I would add that a new procedure has been introduced to facilitate the taxation of the self-employed in these cases.

I very much welcome my hon. and learned Friend's statement. I am sure that he is aware that this is an attempt to increase the revenue and not to spend it. Is he aware that there is a great increase in the number of self-employed persons in jobs otherwise identical with those of employed persons and that they are, therefore, able to claim expenses under the self-employed system which causes some resentment among those who rate purely as employed persons?

Yes, we are aware of this fact. The Public Accounts Committee, in its 1961–62 Report, drew attention to the difficulties which the Inland Revenue was having in following up itinerant sub-contractors. It is for this reason that the new procedures have been introduced.

Is the hon and learned Gentleman aware that the productivity of self-employed persons is usually much higher than that of wage earners?

I do not think that that necessarily follows.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he had on his recent visit to Washington with the United States Government regarding its policy of placing orders for United States Navy ships in British yards; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this regard.

These confidential talks were covered by the joint communiqué issued in Washington on 30th June. As for the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 21st July.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these orders would be of the greatest importance to our shipbuilding industry and to the balance of payments? Can we be assured that this matter is being pursued? Could the right hon. Gentleman say, if these orders come along, how they will be placed? Will individual firms have to go to America, or will the orders be placed with the Shipbuilding Conference?

I cannot answer the last part of the supplementary question because there are some earlier questions of principle, mostly on the American side, which still have to be resolved and there are certain difficulties in the way. But, of course, these orders would be of very great help to our balance of payments.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer keep in mind that one of the troubles in the shipyards on the Clyde is the shortage of skilled labour and that if deliveries cannot be made promptly orders will go to Japan? Will he keep a very careful eye on the position before trying to get orders which would add to the difficulties?

Yes. Nobody wants to see the industry too tightly stretched. That is why it is important that there should be a redeployment of labour into those industries where we can get most export orders.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a factor which might influence the placing of these orders would be an anticipation that sterling might be devalued and that payment, therefore, might be correspondingly cheaper? Even at the risk of losing these orders, would he give a categorical assurance that devaluation is not contemplated by the Government?

That does not arise out of the Question which I have been asked. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I deplore that kind of propaganda which is getting much too widespread on the benches opposite.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consult other Governments with a view to preventing evasion of exchange control regulations by foreign companies.

There is a constant review of the exchange control regulations to prevent evasion, and I do not think that a new approach to foreign Governments is necessary at this stage.

Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that the circular which I sent him from a Danish firm represents an incitement to illegal evasion of exchange control, particularly the method of sending false invoices representing art text books, for example? Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether he has any evidence as to how widespread or otherwise this practice might be or what action he is taking to stop it?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having drawn my attention to the circular. I am not anxious to publicise the action which we are taking to deal with it. I have no information to indicate that this practice is widespread.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the British Government-owned United States securities has been liquefied since 1st January, 1965.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there has been any material change in the value of dollar securities held by the Treasury, through the Exchange Equalisation Account, since the end of April, 1965.

None of the portfolio of dollar securities has so far been transferred to the reserves. Well over half has been made liquid and is ready in the form of short-term dollar securities for immediate use if need be. The monthly announcement of reserve movements will indicate if the portfolio has been drawn on. The extent to which this has been done will be shown in the regular quarterly balance of payments tables.

When the Socialist locusts have eaten these reserves, which reserves have they earmarked to eat next?

Yesterday I invited the Opposition, when I told them what I proposed to do, to indicate whether they supported this proposal, which was initiated by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am bound to say that the level of patriotism among hon. Members opposite gets lower and lower as the Session wears on, and I hope that some member of the Opposition Front Bench will get up and say something a little patriotic for a change.

rose—

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that many people in this country are of the opinion that he is very complacent about this matter? Is he further aware that he seems far too willing to accept the liquidation of the dollar portfolio? Will he instead take a more optimistic view and tell us what he will do about building up or restoring the dollar portfolio if and when the time comes?

Yesterday's debate showed that it is the Government's policy—and I believe that it is one which can be achieved—to secure a balance in our payments by the end of 1966 without an undue repression of the economy. I thought that this was agreed on both sides of the House. That is the best way in which we can ensure that our reserves are maintained at a satisfactory level.

rose—

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the one or two questions which have been addressed to him by hon. Members opposite are intended to denigrate, not the Goevrnment, but the country?

Whether they are intended to do one or the other is for anyone to judge. I will only say this: people who speak lightly in these terms do not know what they could be unleashing if certain circumstances were to eventuate. It behoves all of us—I do not exclude myself from this—to be extremely careful in what we say about these matters: it could have widespread international repercussions which could affect the trading and financial relationships of the whole world.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is the strongest resentment on this side of the House at the attitude he has taken on this subject? Is he also aware that ever since he has been Chancellor of the Exchequer every measure which he has taken to support and defend sterling has been defended from this side of the House? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and many other Opposition Front Bench speakers have constantly supported him in his claim that there is no need for the devaluation of sterling. Comments of this sort come very ill from the right hon. Gentleman, who on three occasions has caused a crisis in sterling by his own irresponsible remarks.

The hon. Gentleman went to Germany recently. He asked me beforehand whether he could make a statement in support of the need to preserve the value of sterling. I am grateful to him for his help, as I have always been. But I hope that he will rebuke his hon. Friends who are making, both in the House and outside, irresponsible statements which can be calculated only to weaken our position.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Ossola Report of the Study Group on the Creation of Reserve Assets is to be published; and when it will be published.

Yes, Sir, on 10th August next.

In welcoming that reply, may I express the hope that this Report will enable hon. Members opposite to become rather better informed about the dangers of talking down sterling and of the acute dangers to the very fragile state of the world monetary system of any dangers to our currency?

The Ossola Report includes a technical analysis of the possibilities that exist for improving world liquidity. I agree with my hon. Friend that in present circumstances it is extremely important that everyone should do all within his power to ensure that the world monetary system is not made more fragile but is put on a more permanent and lasting basis.

As this Report was ready about three months ago and has already been largely published in the Press, can the Chancellor tell us why it could not have been published earlier than this?

Because it is a Report to which the assent of all member countries must be given before it can be published and, therefore, the pace must be that of the slowest. It cannot be published before the last of the member countries gives agreement.

To establish who are the patriots and who are not, will my right hon. Friend consider letting us have more details of our gold and dollar reserves and, in particular, who was responsible for the movement up and down in the gold and dollar reserves during the past month to which the figures relate?

Does not the Chancellor agree that every time he asserts that patriotism is the monopoly of one side of the House, he undermines confidence in the country as a whole?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's vehemence is at direct variance with his accuracy. I did not assert that and I do not assert it. It is within my experience, as I have said, that many hon. Members opposite have done their best to support the endeavour in which we are all engaged; but I am entitled to point out that there are hon. Members opposite who do the reverse. In present circumstances, this is not helpful either to the country or to sterling.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has of abnormal remission or repatriation of funds to America by United States controlled companies operating here; and if he will make a statement.

Direct investment in the United Kingdom, most of which comes from the United States, was £13 million in the first quarter of this year, compared with an average quarterly rate of £45 million in 1964, excluding oil. This reduction was largely in reinvested earnings. Preliminary evidence suggests that remittances have returned to a more normal level in the second quarter.

Is not this a serious matter? Is it not a matter in which, although, as one must recognise, the Americans have their own difficulties, the Government should make representations to the United States Government because they are giving us no help whatever?

The hon. Member may assume that there are continual conversations about this matter. This is one of the difficulties which arises when countries that are in deficit, especially those which are reserve currency countries, are pressed to solve their balance of payments problems. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary wrote a letter to the chairmen of companies in this country asking them to remit from abroad earnings which they had there. This is one of the vicious circles from which the world must escape within the next few years if we are to ensure that world trade and the world monetary system continue to support the needs of the people of the world.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost in a full year of transferring the payment of teachers' salaries to the Exchequer.

That part of the cost of teachers' salaries and superannuation which is not already borne by the Exchequer now amounts to about £230 million in a full year.

In thanking the Financial Secretary for that figure, which is a considerable sum, may I ask whether he does not agree that the transfer of part, perhaps, of this figure to the Exchequer would be a way of bringing to the ratepayers the early relief that the Government promised during the last election?

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said in the Supply Committee debate on 5th May, the Government intend to make changes in the system of local government finance but they will be more radical than the simple transfer of this part of the cost of teachers' salaries to the Exchequer. I must ask the hon. Member to await the Government's proposals on this matter.

Can my hon. and learned Friend give an estimate of what the complete transfer of this burden would represent in terms of increases in Income Tax? Would it not be a sound idea to offset this by taking back the £83 million Surtax concession which the previous Government gave to those who were earning over £5,000 a year?

The total cost would be the figure which I have given—£230 million—because the rest is being borne by the Exchequer through the medium of the various systems of grants.

Arising from the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend and his quotation from the Minister of Housing and Local Government, is it not a fact that the Labour Party manifesto, apart from promising general changes in organisation, promised early relief to ratepayers? When are we to see this?

The right hon. Gentleman must await the proposals.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was liability incurred by the United Kingdom as sterling area bankers for the rest of the sterling area in the years 1960 to 1964, making allowances for gold sold to the United Kingdom for sterling during the same period; and what estimate he has made of the gold and dollar liability in the same period in respect of the United Kingdom's trade with Canada.

The reserves of overseas sterling area countries deposited with the United Kingdom—that is, our net sterling liability to them—rose by around £100 million in this period. With permission, I will circulate figures for the individual years in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Canada does not bank her reserves with this country.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the extent to which forward dealings in foreign currencies by United Kingdom importers and exporters contributed to the financial crisis of last autumn.

The effect of such dealings cannot be estimated precisely, but is thought to have been small.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the number of limited companies which he anticipates will not pay Corporation Tax; and, assuming a rate of 40 per cent., how many he estimates will pay less than £1,000 in the first year.

In round numbers, of the 480,000 limited companies on the Board of Trade register, 150,000 will, it is estimated, pay no Corporation Tax and a further 250,000 would be unlikely to be liable for more than £1,000 for the first full year if the rate were fixed at 40 per cent.

Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is an indication of the exaggeration made by Conservative spokesmen throughout the course of the Finance Bill? Would he not agree that this indicates that the Corporation Tax gives every possible tax incentive to far and away the majority of companies, particularly those which plough back their profits for further growth?

Yes, I fully agree. The figure of 150,000 companies which are unlikely to pay tax not only includes the many companies which either have ceased to carry on business or have not yet started to do so, but also companies whose profits before depreciation are less than the capital allowances that are due.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to make remittances to residents in the United Kingdom in respect of restitution and indemnification resulting from Nazi persecution eligible for sale through the investment currency market.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reintroduce the dollar premium for restitution and compensation payments to victims of Nazi persecution, in view of the fact that these payments do not represent newly-acquired assets but the replacement of spoliated objects and should be treated in the same way as funds accruing from the sale of investments to which, according to the Exchange Control Regulation of 4th May, 1965, the dollar premium is applicable.

No, Sir.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that these unfortunate people who have been severely persecuted and have suffered grave injury to their health are really receiving money in compensation for their investments? Does he realise the existence of the anomaly that if they had received shares instead of money they could sell the shares on the investment currency market? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider the position?

As the hon. and learned Member knows, if they sold their shares on the investment currency market they would still be subject to the measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The hon. and learned Gentleman also knows, I think, that my right hon. Friend gave sympathetic consideration to representations which were made on this subject but that he did not feel that there was any way in which he could single out this class for special treatment compared with all the other categories of receipts which were formerly saleable as investment currency and which are now subject to the new procedure.

Does my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is wide and considerable support for this proposal in many circles which have nothing whatever to do with party affiliations or anything of that kind, and does he also remember that this matter has been canvassed year after year for many years during the days when we sat on the benches opposite and that many influential members of the Labour Party supported it? Having regard to the natural justice of the case, would he not consider the matter again?

Yes, as I have indicated, we accept that there is widespread sympathy for these claimants, but I would point out that the fact is that they have up to now been in a better position, for example, than British claimants against the Egyptian Government who have never been able to sell their compensation as investment currency. So far as I know, this has not given rise to any complaints.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans exist to promote an increase during the current financial year in the Government's spending on public investment in development areas in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in an effort to stimulate employment in these districts.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr).

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the severe deflationary effect of three Budgets coupled with high interest rates which have forced many firms in Northern Ireland into bankruptcy, including one old foundry which employed several hundred men in my own constituency? Does he realise that positive steps must be taken urgently—not just the negative ones mentioned yesterday—to assist Northern Ireland and other marginal areas to offset the effects of these severe measures?

Detailed questions relating to investment in Northern Ireland should be addressed to the Northern Ireland Government, but, as the hon. Member is aware, there are very considerable measures which we have introduced, and continued from the previous Government, which do assist investment in Northern Ireland.

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman heard that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has cut Glasgow's education capital projects next year from £15 million to £4 million, and is he further aware that essential community centre work has now been stopped completely? How does this square with the statement that development areas would be excluded from these cuts?

I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice. It is a quite separate question.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I shall raise the matter again.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to prepare a return for Scotland showing the name and address of every owner of 500 acres and upwards in extent, outside the municipal boundaries of burghs containing more than 40,000 inhabitants, with the estimated acreage and annual value of the lands and heritages of individual owners, and a similar return for municipal burghs containing more than 40,000 inhabitants.

No, Sir. I am afraid we could not undertake this work.

Is my hon. and learned Friend not aware that this job was undertaken in 1873 when neither the equipment nor the personnel at the Treasury was as good as it is today? Why is it that he is denying the basic right of the Scottish people to know who owns their native land and how much of it? Does he not realise that a quantitative survey of Scottish land and its uses cannot be undertaken till the hidden hands which control it today are revealed? Will not he aid in that work?

It may be that in 1873 Government valuers were not as preoccupied as they are today, but I must point out to my hon. Friend that we cannot do as he suggests for the reasons that it would cost too much, that we have not got the staff to spare to do the work, and that it is doubtful whether it would serve any practical purpose.

Would my hon. and learned Friend consider that the possible cost of collating this information may not be as much as he assumes? Would he not think that each county council has in its valuation returns the information sought by my hon. Friend and that, therefore, it is a matter of collecting it from the various local authorities to get the total figures for Scotland?

I am afraid that I am not familiar with Scottish law in these matters, but if it is the same as our law I think the rating registers would be open to inspection.

Would not the whole of this problem of expense be solved and a practical solution produced by publishing photographs of the land owners?