asked the Minister of Technology how much Government backing, and what guaranteed orders he proposes to give to British computer manufacturers to support their research and development costs and to assist them obtain export orders; and if he will make a statement.

Substantial support is being given to the British computer industry through research and development contracts and through a succession of Government orders.

May I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to convey to the Minister of Technology my congratulations on his appointment and my good wishes in the important job which he has undertaken? May I ask the hon. Gentleman two Questions? First, will the new Minister continue the support which was given by the previous Minister in buying British machines rather than American machines for the universities, the Post Office, and the nationalised industries? Secondly, will he extend the export guarantees to cover the exports of these expensive machines which are now taking place?

My right hon. Friend will certainly continue the support for the British computer industry which has been given in the past. We have under consideration the question of extending the export guarantees to cover these machines, but I am not yet ready to say anything on the matter.

Can we count on further help for computer-aided designs?

This matter is under study in the National Engineering Laboratory at East Kilbride. We certainly have the matter under attention.

asked the Minister of Technology what was the percentage change in net new export orders of machine tools between January and March, 1966, and the corresponding period in 1965.

Twenty-one per cent. lower.

Are not these disturbing figures? Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that, for the six months ending in March, the figures are over 20 per cent. lower as well? Has he indicated his concern to the President of the Board of Trade?

There has been during the last three months a decline compared with the previous quarter. It is true that the trend in the last six months has been downwards but I am glad to say that, in the last month, there has been a significant upward movement. We are, of course, in touch with the E.D.C. for the machine tool industry about this and other matters affecting the industry.

asked the Minister of Technology what discussions the Atomic Energy Authority has had with the Central Electricity Generating Board to determine the price to be paid by the Board for electricity generated by the 250 megawatt fast breeder reactor at Dounreay.

The Authority has had discussion with the North of Scotland Hydroelectric Board. Surplus electricity produced by the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay will be purchased by the Board at a price which will enable it to be sold to consumers at normal tariff prices.

asked the Minister of Technology (1) what reorganisation of his Department he is making to deal with the transfer to it of responsibility for the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries;

My Department is working out, in consultation with the Board of Trade, the detailed arrangements for the transfer of responsibility for the shipbuilding industry, but it is too soon to say what reorganisation or additional staff will be necessary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the importance of continuity in this vital industry, particularly just after the recommendations of the Geddes Report? Is he further aware that frequent changes of responsibility from one Ministry to another are undesirable and that he will have to do a lot to counterbalance it?

I am sure that the Government are well aware of this. Appropriate staff will be moving with their related departments. One of the reasons the process is being taken at this pace is to avoid interruption of the work on Plowden and Geddes.

Will my right hon. Friend or either of his Parliamentary Secretaries be making contact with the shipbuilding interests?

Of course. In this case, the Board of Trade is in touch with the shipbuilding interests and the staff coming to my Department is already in contact with them.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new appointment? Will the Government announce their decision on the Geddes Report before responsibility for shipbuilding is moved from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Technology, or will it fall to the right hon. Gentleman to present the Government's reactions to the Geddes proposals?

The first work on the Geddes Report is being done by the Board of Trade. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we shall be involved in any decisions.

Will the Ministry of Technology and the Board of Trade be in direct consultation at all stages with the shipbuilding community, since it had no knowledge or consultation before the transfer of these departments was arranged, which is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of the industry?

While I appreciate that point, this is a matter of the machinery of Government and of organisation. It was proper for the Government to take this decision, but there will be no lack of contact.

asked the Minister of Technology what administrative arrangements he has made at the present time for dealing with research, development and construction in the shipbuilding industry; what additional arrangements he proposes in the near future; and what discussions he has had with the industry with a view to determining the nature of this machinery.

The Board of Trade takes the lead in discussions with the industry on ways in which the Government might help. The Ministry of Technology is now to be associated with those discussions. Arrangements already exist in my Department for reviewing with the industry its research needs.

Has the right hon. Gentleman actually had meetings already with the shipbuilding industry in connection with construction as distinct from research?

I have not myself personally, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about this, I will report what has been done.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now publish a revised organisation chart for his Department incorporating all the changes made since 9th March, 1966; what changes and additions have been made since this date; what further changes and additions are contemplated in the immediate future; and how many civil servants and personnel are involved.

The basic organisation remains the same as stated on 10th May, 1966. The detailed organizational changes will follow the implementation of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement on 16th June, 1966.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment and wish him well. Can he state whether these proposed changes, which were undoubtedly announced for internal political reasons and which are now obviously not necessary, are themselves technically and administratively justified?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of the change and the reason for it, which was to bring together different aspects of the engineering industry, of which he has great knowledge. We shall be looking at this over the next few months before the change takes place and I will bear in mind the points that he or other hon. Gentlemen like to put.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give special attention in this change to the position of the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern and make certain that the Prime Minister's earlier undertaking not to fragment or erode or vitiate that important scientific centre will be the continuing policy of his Department?

Discussions are going on, and if the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a specific Question about this subject, I would be glad to try and answer. Discussions are going on with the Ministry of Defence about the extent to which it will need to take over the responsibilities of the Ministry of Aviation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, throughout, the House will be concerned to ensure that, with the added responsibility of his Department for the whole of engineering, arrangements are made for the necessary support for the sale overseas of British engineering products? We should like to hear more about the arrangements, particularly for the transfers from the Board of Trade, and that the support that these industries have enjoyed from the Board of Trade will not be jeopardised by going to two Departments rather than one.

I am aware of the importance of that point and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making it.

asked the Minister of Technology (1) what staff is available to the Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology for continuous oversight of the supply and employment of qualified scientists and engineers both in general and with particular reference to employment by Government agencies; and (2) what permanent machinery exists for formulating and implementing Government policy for optimum employment and redeployment of scientific manpower within the Ministries and other public bodies.

The Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Technology provide experienced staff to support the work of the Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology. Making the best use of manpower resources in Government agencies is primarily a matter for the Departments concerned and the Treasury.

Will the staff provided by the Department of Education and Science be occupied full time on the work of the Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology? How are the requirements of the Defence Departments, which use a considerable number of qualified scientists and engineers, co-ordinated in the whole programme?

It is the objective of the Government to ensure that scientific personnel previously used on defence are used, so far as possible, on civil work in future, and this matter remains under continuous review. Eleven senior staff are directly concerned with the work of the Committee.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, three years ago, the Prime Minister made a speech at Scarborough about the brain drain? What are the Government doing to prevent these highly qualified people from going to the United States and elsewhere? The brain drain is worse than ever before.

The Government are giving the greatest possible encouragement to advanced technology but it is necessary that all aspects of advanced technology be judged from the point of view of economic viability.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the machinery of co-operation between his Department and the Department of Education and Science on the drawing up of syllabuses for training in the use of computers.

The Ministry of Technology is represented on the Inter-departmental Working Group on Computer Education under the chairmanship of the Department of Education and Science.

asked the Minister of Technology what discussions he has had with leaders of the engineering industry on implementing those parts of the Plan for Engineering for which his Department is responsible.

Continuing discussion with industry on the implementation of the National Plan is one of the principal activities of my Department. The range of industries is too large and the discussions are too numerous for me to itemise them.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. Is he aware that the trade unions in the engineering industry are most anxious to give every assistance they can towards implementing the National Plan and making the engineering industry much more efficient than it has ever been?

I am, of course, aware of that. The Plan for Engineering, published in 1951 and again in 1953 by the Confederation, deals with many of the issues now the subject of consultation between my Department and the unions concerned.

May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will from time to time publish a revision of the National Plan? I think he will agree that a five-year plan ought to be revised after the second or third year when it is clear that it has not been fulfilled in its earlier years, so that the objectives are at least realistic?

This would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs but, in so far as it affects industries which my Department is responsible for sponsoring, we will keep the position under review.

Will the right hon. Gentleman pay special attention to apprenticeship schemes? It looks as though the apprenticeship period should be reduced from five years to three in many cases.

We are in consultation about this matter with the Ministry of Labour.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now make a statement in the steps he has taken to reorganise the machine tool industry in Great Britain.

With the encouragement and support of the Ministry of Technology, there has been considerable progress in the last two years in the concentration of the machine tool industry into stronger units. The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation will facilitate such further developments as prove necessary.

Can my hon. Friend say what plans his Ministry has for Government-sponsored machine tool factories?

We have no plans at present, but I assure my hon. Friend that there are no doctrinaire, anti-public enterprise thoughts in this Ministry at this time.

asked the Minister of Technology, in view of the heavy cost to the British economy during the last three years through calls on British insurance companies and Lloyds and damage to British-owned property because of destruction by hurricane, what experiments he is planning in his Department or sponsoring in research elsewhere towards lessening such damage.

The effect of wind pressures on buildings is studied at the National Physical Labarotory and at the Building Research Station. The Overseas Division of Building Research Station is always ready to give advice on the design of buildings for hurricane areas.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is much more than a matter of buildings and that the claims resulting from Hurricane "Betsy" were the biggest of all time for the British insurance industry, and that thousands of lives are lost every year because of hurricanes? If there can be international liaison over locust control, surely there can be international collaboration in lessening hurricane damage.

I should like to look at that, but I can tell the hon. Member that the Building Research Station has prepared model building regulations for small buildings, which are shortly to be published, and that it is the small buildings, I am informed, which are the greatest problem rather than the large structures, which are generally quite adequate.

asked the Minister of Technology what research and development his Department is now sponsoring on the Hovertrain; what will be the cost of this during the current year; what percentage this will be of all funds from private and governmental sources spent on this development; and whether he is satisfied that the total funds available are adequate.

None, Sir. But Hovercraft Development Ltd., a subsidiary of the N.R.D.C., has been doing some experimental work. It has constructed a small dynamic model and has completed plans for experiments with a man-carrying vehicle.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of this great new development which is in danger of slowing down because of the lack of energetic Government support? Does he consider that the amount of money now available, Government or private money, is sufficient to see that progress is made?

This application of the air cushion principle should be seen against the general background of the development of the Hovercraft industry. I agree that this application is very much at the beginning of its development, but we have now reached the stage where further major progress will depend upon detailed studies between H.D.L. and British Railways and studies which, I hope, will embrace alternative fast, land transport systems.

asked the Minister of Technology what administrative arrangements he has made for dealing with research, development and production in the telecommunications field; and what proposals he has for improving telecommunications in this country.

Standing arrangements have been established between my Department and the Post Office and discussions are in progress with individual firms in the industry. In addition the Department's Technical Advisory Committee for Electronics can also consider basic aspects of research and development in this field.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there can be no long-term future for this country in the international telecommunications market unless we engage in an adequate national space programme? In this context, has he seen the Follett Report in 1964 which makes it abundantly clear that in this country we are capable of developing a Commonwealth satellite communications system? What is his view?

That is rather a different question although very important. One of the first questions which I raised with the industry in October, 1964, was the possible development of an export market in earth satellite tracking stations. I also attended both Commonwealth telecommunications conferences. But I think that these matters are now up to the Postmaster-General.

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for his Ministry to give advice to the Post Office on a simpler problem—how to ensure that ordinary letters are delivered on time?

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree, particularly having had the experience of being Postmaster-General, that of all the responsibilities which his Department has this is probably the most important? Would he not agree that those countries which at any moment of history have been at the fore of communications technology have also as a result been those countries which economically and politically have been most successful?

I entirely share that view and that is why I am glad that last year, for the first time, in terms of external and internal telecommunications, we narrowed the gap with other countries and that this is the fastest growing science-based industry in the country.

asked the Minister of Technology what administrative arrangements he has made for dealing with research, development and construction in the civil aircraft industry; what additional arrangements he proposes in the near future; and what discusssions he has had with the industry and the Society of British Aircraft Constructors with a view to determining the nature of this machinery.

Responsibility for the aircraft industry continues to be with the Minister of Aviation until the transfer to my Department announced by the Prime Minister on 16th June takes place.

Will the right hon. Gentleman do a little better than that? Can he say when talks will be started with the S.B.A.C., which has no inkling as yet as to what form the new arrangements will take? Does he not think that it is time that this industry, which this year alone will be responsible for about £200 million worth of exports, was given some adequate means of communication with the Government? Will he do his best to see that that is brought forward?

As I said, the Ministry of Aviation is responsible for contacts with the industry until transfer takes place. When transfer takes place, those staff who have been in contact with the industry and other relevant staff will move to my Department. I do not think that the difficulties of the transfer will be as great as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Is it not the case that military and civil aircraft research and development and so on have been interdependent ever since we embarked on these projects? Does my right hon. Friend think that it will be an advance if we now separate them and put them under separate Ministers?

Those considerations were in the Prime Minister's mind before the decision was announced on 16th June it is in order to eliminate any doubts about the details of the transfer that discussions are now going on with the Ministry of Defence about the exact definition of Ministry of Aviation responsibilities. I am sure that my hon. Friend will see the great value of bringing aviation engineering into a Department which has wide responsibilities for the allocation of R. and D. in the country as a whole.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind as the new Minister that he is now taking on far too many new activities and that communication is the most essential feature of the new post? Will he again consider the amount of activity which he is taking under his own wing?

The allocation of responsibilities within the Government is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide, but it is a little early for the hon. Gentleman to assume that an industry is necessarily wrongly placed in the context and under the sponsorship of one Ministry which, for the first time, brings responsibilities for the engineering industry together with the Government research effort.

Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to his colleague, the Minister of Aviation, before he takes over that the House should be informed of the date some time beforehand? Is he aware that I recently put a Question down for answer by the Minister of Aviation tomorrow and received only 48 hours' notice of its transfer to the Board of Trade, well down the list? Is not this a very discourteous way to treat hon. Members?

The allocation of Questions as between Ministers is not a matter for me, but I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said about the exact date on which transfer will take place.

Although the responsibilities of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry have obviously not been of his own choosing and there is always a reasonable argument between vertical and horizontal structure, the Prime Minister having decided on the one, will the right hon. Gentleman take care in dealing with these industries to assist them with their selling problems where he can?

This is a responsibility which rests particularly with the Board of Trade, but I do not think that any Ministry responsible as we are for the advancement of technology in Britain could possibly fail to take due account of the export potentialities of developments, and we shall try to encourage them as far as possible.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will prepare and publish an annual report upon the current work of his Department and his programme of work for the future.

I have no plans to do this, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for this suggestion, which I shall consider carefully.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, in considering this question, bear in mind that the responsibilities of his Department are very complex and inevitably technical and that it would be for the benefit not only of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen but of the public at large if he would follow the practice of the Department of Education and Science and produce an annual report?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not the general practice for Government Departments, but I am very conscious of the considerations which he has put before me. The research stations do publish annual reports, but I shall consider this matter very carefully.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are also hon. Members on this side of the House who would welcome the publication of an annual report?

Before the Minister makes his annual report, would he be good enough to look into the problem of how, allegedly, the American industrial worker is able to produce two or three times per hour more than his British counterpart—[Interruption.]—and will he see what can be done, from a technological point of view, to put this right?

That is another question but it is obviously one which awaits me. My personal annual report is still 363 days away, and I shall give consideration to it.

asked the Minister of Technology what estimates he has made of the number of new staff needed in his Department in connection with the new Selective Employment Tax, and of the cost of this additional work.

It is difficult to gauge the precise work load which will be involved, but it is estimated that not more than four extra staff will be needed. The additional annual cost falling on the Ministry of Technology Vote may be about £10,000.

Is the Minister aware that there will be a large number of applications from firms requiring certification for their applications for the premium? Is not all of that going to take time and require a large number of additional staff? Can the hon. Gentleman say what the timing of this will be?

Our best estimate at present is that four additional staff are required. The responsibility of the Ministry of Technology in this matter is, as will be known, for certification of scientific research establishments covered by Clause 1(2) of the Bill. As for the timing of it, I assume that we shall be in phase with the Ministry of Labour.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue is received annually from dog licences.

In 1964–65 the receipts from dog licences issued in England and Wales were £997,361 and in Scotland £76,572.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to figures accepted by the R.S.P.C.A., nearly half of the dogs in this country are not licensed at all? Would not the Exchequer benefit and would not there be a smaller number of unwanted dogs if licences had to be obtained by purchasers before the dogs were collected from the vendors? May I also ask whether an increase in the licence fee has been considered?

As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am sure that he will be aware that proposals are at present before the House and new legislation is contemplated, under which variations in the licence fee can be more readily dealt with than at present when legislation is required. In answer to the other part of the supplementary question, no decision has been reached with regard to such a change.

I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would tell me if I am right in thinking that dog licences were originally started in order to help finance the war against the French? If that is so, would the right hon. Gentleman ask his Department to digest the information that Napoleon is dead and that we are at peace with France?

I will take due note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially with regard to poodles.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the decision by the London Borough of Camden Council to ensure that all contracts have a clause barring any form of discrimination, what progress has been made in inserting a similar clause in all contracts with Government Departments.

The Government are opposed to discriminatory practices wherever they occur, and are considering urgently the best means to ensure that Government contractors do not engage in racial discrimination.

May I ask the Chancellor whether the Government are willing to agree in principle to such a clause appearing at a later stage in Government contracts? Can the Chancellor say what progress is now taking place in considering the possibility of inserting such a clause in Government contracts?

The principle is quite clear. How far it can be embodied in a particular contract, or in Government contracts generally, is now the subject of consultations between Departments and with others outside the Government.

This Question does not say anything about racial discrimination. Is the Chancellor equally prepared to condemn, as I am, say, racial discrimination and, for example, discrimination between contractors who may or may not employ wholly union labour?

There is a Question later on the Notice Paper about the negotiations with trade unions, but I must say that I was assuming that my hon. Friend was referring to racial discrimination, because that was what the contract of the London Borough of Camden Council referred to.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct Ministers not to place contracts with firms which refuse to recognise or negotiate with trade unions.

Government contractors have to comply with the Fair Wages Resolution, which deals with wages, conditions and membership of trade unions. If my hon. Friend knows of any particular cases of difficulty, I am sure the appropriate Minister will be glad to help him.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he would look at the Written Answer given by the Minister of Labour in yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT, concerning a firm in my constituency which depends very largely on Government contracts for its existence and which refuses to recognise or negotiate with trade unions involved? In view of the pledge given by our party at the General Election to legislate against such firms, may I invite him to anticipate that legislation?

I will certainly look at this because it is quite clear that firms, in their own interests, should be willing to negotiate with well-organised and recognised trade unions. There is no better path to industrial peace.

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assure this House that he will not accede to the desires of various of his hon. Friends and curtail the freedom of firms to run their businesses as they see fit?

That seems to be asking me to give an assurance which I clearly have not given in the original reply.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been received from charities, social service and voluntary organisations over the Selective Employment Tax.

Quite a number. The point has been met by providing for repayment of the tax paid in the Selective Employment Payments Bill.

Is the Chancellor aware that there is a great deal of satisfaction among many charities that they are to be exempt from the Selective Employment Tax? Would it be possible to look again at the question of them having to pay the tax in the first place, since a number of charities will have the problem of raising the money even though it is to be refunded later?

I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have been present in the Chamber when we had exhaustive debates on this matter. It was made quite clear then that if we use this system, which is very economical in manpower, as has been revealed earlier this afternoon, there is no possibility of exempting charities from the initial payment. I must repeat that when the charities came to see me, they emphasised that it was not the money that was so important as the principle of being exempt from taxation.

Has the Chancellor had representations on behalf the London Library which, although not strictly a charity, is fairly akin to many charities in view of the educational character of its work?

Not only have I had representations but the matter has been debated during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the United Nations Association is to be treated as a charitable institution for purposes of the Selective Employment Tax.

The Bill now before Parliament provides for the repayment of the Selective Employment Tax to charities as defined under existing law. It is not for me to decide whether an individual body is a charity.

Will my right hon. Friend consider amendments, if they are required, which will make it quite certain that the United Nations Association will not be made to pay this tax?

My right hon. Friend put down a Question about charities which I have answered quite clearly. I can only repeat that it is not for me to decide whether an individual body is a charity. In the final result, that is for the courts.

May I press my right hon. Friend on this matter? if the Government take a large sum from the United Nations Association, which will in great measure cripple its work, while they are paying more than the total budget of the Association to salesmen to propagate the sale of war machinery throughout the world, many people will feel that this is quite wrong.

I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is no need for anxiety about any tax which the Government propose crippling the work of this excellent organisation.

Without anticipating the discussions which we shall have on a future Bill in Committee, is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that all these matters must go to the courts? Is it not possible to find a method of deciding whether what one might call the fringe charity is a charity or not, perhaps within the discretion of the Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter?

Certainly. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in the sense that it is for the Charity Commissioners or for the Secretary of State for Education and Science or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland to say whether any body is a charity under existing law. Only when there is dispute about that would appeal to the courts lie.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will have a copy of the latest annual report of the Bank for International Settlements placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

The Library has a copy.

In view of the fact that this report sets out the circumstances whereby, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins), our international financial transactions depend on assurances of the Government restraining internal demand, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that all his hon. Friends should study this report with care?

Yes, and I hope the whole of it, not just selected parts which happen to meet the convenience of the hon. Gentleman. I thought that it was a well-balanced report.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider a scheme for taxing and insuring motor vehicles by means of a tax on petrol sales; and what would be the approximate administrative costs saved by altering the present method of taxation in this way.

The administrative savings from substituting petrol duty for vehicle excise duty cannot be accurately estimated, partly because the registration procedure would have to be retained for control purposes. My right hon. Friend has no plans for effecting vehicle insurance through the tax system, which would require a very extensive administrative machinery.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree, though, that this would prevent evasion, would save the time of civil servants and would fairly allocate the burden in proportion to those who enjoy motoring? Therefore, will he urgently reconsider this policy, which seems to have overwhelming advantages?

I am not sure to what my hon. Friend is referring. The advantages do not exist in either part of the Question which I have answered.

Would the Chief Secretary inform his hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) that there is already a petrol sales tax of 3s. 3d. a gallon and that the British public would not accept a further tax, even from a Socialist Government?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present system is breaking down because hundreds of thousands of vehicle owners deliberately and consistently avoid paying the Road Fund tax and no attempts are being made to enforce it? Therefore, my right hon. Friend should either ensure that the tax is paid or drop it altogether.

No. Reports and suggestions of the duty being evaded to this extent are very much exaggerated. Routine reports suggest that unlicensed use amounts to approximately 1 per cent.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has so far been collected in Capital Gains Tax; and what has been the cost of assessing and collecting it.

About £200,000 so far. The cost of assessing and collecting the tax cannot be segregated from the cost of administering other taxes.

Does not this mean that we should simplify this very complicated tax, thus freeing many able people, both inside the Revenue and outside, for more productive work?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recollect that we have had many debates on the tax from which it has emerged that proposals are called simplification but really refer to abolition.

Does not the Chief Secretary's reply confirm that this tax is not worth the trouble taken in collecting it in view of the great damage it does in this country and other countries?

No, Sir. It is too early to come to such a conclusion. The Budget estimate was for £5 million this year. There is no reason at present to alter that estimate.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further statement on the Commonwealth Mission on Vietnam.

I have nothing to add to my Answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 21st June.

Although the Mission may not be received in person by the Hanoi régime, should it not now be active in consulting other Governments concerned in accordance with its original terms of reference if it is ever to promote a conference?

There may be a case for reactivating this Mission. if it had to be done, as I have already explained in the House, it could be done very quickly by consultation with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that exhortation with the North Vietnamese pays as little as exhortation with anybody else? In view of this, would he consider whether this country could promise to contribute, say, £50 million or £100 million to the redevelopment of South and North Vietnam if they agree to peace talks?

I hope that appeals and exhortation will be successful. I am not certain that promises of economic aid would add anything. But my hon. Friend will be aware of the very imaginative programme being worked out internationally for the Mekong River, costing, I think, 1,000 million dollars in Western aid, a great deal of it from the United States. He will also be aware of other work which will be undertaken by the Asian Bank.

In any consultations within the Commonwealth, or within the Commonwealth Peace Mission if it is re-established, will the Prime Minister do his best to make sure that full weight is given to the views of the Governments of Australia and New Zealand?

When the original Commonwealth Peace Mission was appointed—and it was very enthusiastically supported by the then Prime Minister of Australia, Sir Robert Menzies, as he made clear—they were fully involved in not only the selection of the proposed Peace Mission, but also in its terms of reference and in the guide lines given to it.

In considering reactivating the Commonwealth Peace Mission, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the widespread alarm caused by the growing impression that the United States Government no longer favour a negotiated settlement in Vietnam, but are now seeking to secure a military victory at any cost? Will he repudiate the view that the solution to the conflict lies in the partition of the country along Korean lines? Will he reaffirm that—[HON. MEMBER: "Too long."]

Order. The hon. Member's supplementary question is long enough.

I have always said—and I think that the whole House agrees—that a political solution is the only solution which can bring peace in Vietnam. The actual form of that solution must be left for those who get round the conference table to negotiate it. But as recently as last Saturday the President of the United States made clear once again his Government's willingness to engage in totally unconditional discussions, given, as he said, only a room, a table and somebody to talk to.

In view of the emphasis which the Prime Minister has rightly placed on consultation with Australia and New Zealand over the Common- wealth Mission, can he now say why it was that there was no consultation with Australia and New Zealand over his own statement dissociating the Government from the latest steps in American policy in Vietnam, especially in view of the fact that this had been commonly discussed in the Press as well as elsewhere for a number of weeks before the action was taken?

The Australian and New Zealand Governments were fully aware of our position, stated in the House as long ago as 21st December last, that if such bombing occurred we would dissociate ourselves from it. We have had no representations from them on that question at any point.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek clarification from President Johnson of the reasons for the negotiation by the United States Administration of 99-year leases on the main American bases in Vietnam, including Da Nang, with a view to taking action in the matter as co-chairman of the Control Commission and a party to the 1954 Geneva Agreements, which provide for the withdrawal of all foreign forces and bases from Vietnam.

The United States Government do not hold any such leases whether in Da Nang or anywhere else in Vietnam and I have certainly no knowledge of any negotiations for the purpose of acquiring any such leases.

Would my right hon. Friend make further inquiries into this subject, because I have reason to believe that my information is correct? Furthermore, will he make it clear now that he would oppose any American measures that perpetuate their occupation of South Vietnam or partition Vietnam, even if those demands are put forward in unconditional negotiations backed by a large American force?

I should be very glad to consider any evidence that my hon. Friend cared to send me. I do not need to make any such representations to the United States Government. As recently as 18th June, President Johnson made it clear that they do not intend to hold bases in Vietnam. He said, "We are not fighting to remain in Vietnam, not to retain bases there, and not to control the affairs of their people." It is not American policy, in fact.

asked the Prime Minister how many Ministers and Members of the House were summoned to the United Kingdom from duty abroad at public expense on 13th to 15th June, 1966, and for what reasons; and what was the total cost.

No Ministers, Sir, but six Members of the Parliamentary delegation to the Western European Union meeting in Paris, returned at their own request a little earlier than had previously been planned. Since they did not return to Paris at public expense, no additional cost fell on public funds as a result of this.

While thanking the Prime Minister for that assurance, may I ask him if it was not rather hard on some of his younger colleagues to bring them home merely to vote, when he has a majority of 100 at his disposal?

We did not bring anyone home, except those who asked to be brought home. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in May of last year, when we offered pairs to all the Council of Europe delegates on the other side of the House, the Conservative leaders insisted on bringing them home from Strasbourg to vote in the steel nationalisation debate.

asked the Prime Minister to what extent he reached agreement with Chancellor Erhard on a policy of disengagement and the establishment of a zone in Europe free of nuclear weapons, foreign forces and military alliances, comprising both Germanys, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and limiting and putting under international supervision the conventional forces of these States.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the communiqué issued after the German Chancellor's visit which was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th May.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the German Chancellor, on his return to Germany, reported to the Bundestag that complete agreement had been reached between the two Governments on all essential questions concerning the present international situation? Was such agreement reached over German and European security on the basis of the Labour Party policy which is summarised in my Question, or was it reached on some other basis and, if so, what?

My hon. Friend always preserves to himself the right to interpret Labour Party policy. But, so far as disengagement is concerned, I explained the position of the Government, which is in full accordance with party policy over many years, in the debate which we had in July of last year.

Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten what Labour Party policy was? At the time of the last election, was it not to seek to create nuclear-free zones? May I ask him what initiatives have been taken by the Government, and will he perhaps respond to the frequent requests from his back benches to publish a statement indicating progress in disarmament talks?

I have answered many questions on this in the House and referred to it in a number of foreign affairs debates. Our position on nuclear-free zones was discussed with the German Government as long ago as March, 1965, and has been repeatedly discussed since then with our other allies. The position is that we should like to see nuclear-free zones, on condition that the zones are not only free of missiles stationed within those areas but of missiles targeted on those areas.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether in his talks with the German Chancellor or otherwise he has ever suggested that there should he exploratory talks between representatives of the N.A.T.O. Powers and representatives of the Warsaw Pact Powers with a view to seeing what possibilities there are for a détente in Europe?

The hon. and learned Member will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made that point in recent N.A.T.O. meetings, and the point was made again by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I think that it is very important that further progress should be made in this direction, not necessarily by a straight confrontation between N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact representatives in such discussions, but certainly on agreed lines in a whole series of bilateral discussions.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is an entirely new situation in Europe at present, with the great possibility of a solution to the European problem? Has he given consideration to the idea which has been floated by the Russians, the French and others of a European security conference in order to try to reach agreement on a European security pact?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there are opportunities for improved relations and a relaxation of tension between East and West in Europe. On the question of a security conference, we have always taken the view that it is important that such a conference, when it takes place, should be successful a id should not be a place where we get propaganda statements or the set positions of both sides. That is why we need a lot of patient discussion bilaterally between ourselves and the Soviet Union, and between other Eastern and Western European countries first.

asked the Prime Minister if he will recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of a Commission to review and report on the honours system and methods used to make awards, and that the Commission be asked to make recommendations for enhancing the prestige and standing of awards and making styles and titles accord with the public dignity of a modern nation.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread feeling that the present honours system has fallen largely into disrepute and that it is no longer representative of true social merit? Will not an innovating Administration like his own consider fundamental reform?

I am giving a lot of thought to these matters myself, and I hope shortly to be able to make a statement in the House. I do not think that a Commission is the right way of dealing with the situation.

Would it not meet the point if the Prime Minister were to make his recommendations for honours more from amongst those who apply for them, as is done with the new Queen's Award for Industry?

In the case of the Queen's Award for Industry, it is necessary for the Advisory Committee to have particulars of the export and productivity performances of firms. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if it were a question of appointing those who apply for it, I would have a very wide field of selection, but I am not sure that the qualitative result would be as satisfactory as the quantitative.

Mr. Biggs-Davison.

Why does the Prime Minister make such a brutally negative reply to his hon. Friend—

Order. I called the hon. Gentleman to ask the next Question, No. Q6.

asked the Prime Minister what consideration has been given by Her Majesty's Government to a reform of the House of Lords designed to make it more systematically representative of the estates, professions, trades and religious and cultural life of the United Kingdom.

I have no evidence that there is any general desire for a reform in the composition of the House of Lords.

Has not this been an outstanding question for more than 50 years now? While the House of Lords is an extremely valuable and expert body, is it not desirable to seek to make it more so while keeping an elected proportion of hereditary peers? Will the Prime Minister take advantage of the French Prime Minister's visit to discuss with him the ideas underlying the French proposal to amalgamate the Economic and Social Council with the Senate, with a view to having a second chamber such as I have suggested?

Now that I have heard the hon. Gentleman's suggestion for the composition of the House of Lords, I am even more reinforced in my view that there are many ideas about composition, but I do not know that there is any great enthusiasm for any one proposal. What has been a matter of concern for some years—and it was dealt with in the recent election manifesto of the Labour Party—is the question not of the composition but of the powers of the House of Lords.

Can my right hon. Friend say where on earth he got the idea that there is no pressure in the country or in this House to reform the House of Lords, if not to abolish it completely? Will he give an assurance that the promise, threat or whatever it was in the Labour Party manifesto to curb its delaying powers is only the first step in the reform of the place along the corridor?

In fairness to my hon. Friend, I should make it clear that he has not been one of the applicants for honours. He obviously misheard me if he thinks that what I said was that there was no desire for a reform of the House of Lords. I said that there was no desire for a reform of the composition of the House of Lords. The promise in the Labour Party manifesto referred to powers, not composition.

Have any of the Prime Minister's right hon. or hon. Friends asked for a life peerage within the last 48 hours?

No, Sir, there have been no such requests, and the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that since October, 1964, we have not been ennobling any sitting Members or giving them knighthoods, or baronetcies, or anything else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sorensen."] It is, of course, the fact—I overlooked this—that two of my hon. Friends went to another place shortly after the formation of the Government in October, 1964, but the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who had a long, distinguished record as Patronage Secretary in the matter of rewarding his back benchers, will have noticed that we have not given knighthoods, baronetcies or peerages to sitting Members from that moment.

Will my right hon Friend nevertheless bear in mind that, whatever attempts are made to improve the House of Lords, there is only one reform that we want, and that is to get rid of it quickly?

Even on that proposition there are many views in different parts of the House and in the country, but I think that the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) will recognise that a considerable number of scientists, professional men, and representatives of the religious and cultural life of the United Kingdom, to quote his Question, have recently been recommended to go to the other place and that this, over a period, is doing what he wants to do in the last few words of his Question.

With regard to the power of the House of Lords, would not the best plan be to introduce a Parliament Bill in reverse so that when a Measure of law reform has passed the upper House twice, it should pass this House subject only to a six months' delay?

That is a very interesting proposition, and of course a great many law reform Measures are now emanating from the other place. But I think that this is a matter to which one would have to give further consideration. Perhaps in due course it might be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure.

rose—

Order. I think that we must move on.