asked the Minister of Power what discussions he has had in the Council of Association with the European Coal and Steel Community about his proposals for nationalising the United Kingdom steel industry.

There have been no discussions in the Council of Association, but informal talks have taken place with officials of the High Authority.

Is it not quite extraordinary, as it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to join the Common Market, that they should take a major step like this without holding formal discussions as to its effect? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this will have profound repercussions because the pricing structure and investment policy of the Bill conflict with the Treaty of Paris?

As I just told the hon. Gentleman, discussions have taken place with officials of the High Authority. We have no reason to suppose that the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry will produce such difficulties.

Is it not true that the proposals of the Federation regarding the reorganisation of the steel industry run directly contrary to the principles of the Treaties of Paris and Rome? Will he say whether there have been any discussions by the Federation or anyone else about this problem?

I do not know what the Federation has done. It is certainly true that the only alternatives suggested to nationalisation involved a strengthened supervisory authority which would certainly conflict with the supervisory powers of the High Authority.

asked the Minister of Power what study he has made of the improvements in the arrangements for resettlement and retraining of mine-workers which would result from Great Britain's joining the European Coal and Steel Community.

The Government and the National Coal Board keep closely in touch with the practice of the European Coal and Steel Community in handling resettlement and retraining of miners. Improvements in the United Kingdom have been made by the Government and the National Coal Board and are not being delayed until it is decided whether we join the European Coal and Steel Community.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that these arrangements are better than those which we provide in this country? Would he, therefore, not agree that this is a very good reason for us pressing forward with our negotiations with the Common Market?

It is genuinely difficult to compare the arrangements because of the differing circumstances in which they operate—different local conditions, social security benefits, local employment provisions, the composition of the labour force, the prospects of alternative employment, and so on. We are satisfied that the improvements made in this country are adequate to the problem.

asked the Minister of Power what discussions he has had with the gas industry on the availability of spare parts for machinery in gasworks to prevent breakdowns in gas supply next winter and danger to the public.

The provision of spare parts for gas plants is a matter for the gas industry. I am in very close touch with the industry on the whole question of gas supply prospects for the coming winter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the failure of private firms last winter to supply spare parts for this industry is bringing nationalisation into disrepute?

I am aware that these breakdowns were due partly to failure of components provided by private companies, but I do not know that this is bringing nationalisation into disrepute. We would certainly have been in much more difficulty without them.

Would it be true to say that at the same time as these shortages were going on the industry was closing down gasworks that were operating satisfactorily?

That is another question.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he is now taking to prevent the recurrence of power cuts next winter.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to ensure there will be no power cuts in the coming winter.

Every possible effort is being made to commission new plant and to bring existing plant and equipment to a high state of readiness for next winter.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House how much the demand for electric power has been increasing in recent years?

Not without notice.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the capital investment programme of the electricity industry takes account of the fact that weather conditions vary enormously as between the North and the South? What guarantee can he give that the demand for electricity will be in relation to supply? Demand will probably be greater in the North than in the South in the coming winter—or, indeed, in any winter.

One has to take weather prospects over the country as a whole. It clearly depends on the amount of plant in service and the growth of load, but, on present estimates, the C.E.G.B. expects a plant margin of 10 per cent. for the coming winter as compared with 7 per cent. last winter.

Can the Minister say that there will be no cut whatever in capital spent on power stations, because, if there is to be a cut, will not this inevitably mean a breakdown in supply in future years during cold spells?

There are other Questions on this subject on the Order Paper.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in bad winters in the past there has been an ample supply of coal at the pithead which has not been able to be delivered to the power stations? Will he encourage the power stations to lay in ample stocks and to stockpile, particularly by coastwise shipping from Goole?

Leaving aside the nationalist element, this has been a problem in the past. Steps are being taken to improve it. As a result of the seamen's strike, there are low stocks of coal at sea-fed power stations in Southern England. It is hoped to build these up to normal pre-winter level by the end of October.

Will the Minister now answer the question that I put to him just now: will not the closing down of gasworks already in existence and working contribute to any possible shortages?

If the hon. Gentleman has any particular gasworks in mind, no doubt he will let me know.

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that the undue claims being made about the potential production to be obtained from the natural gas in the North Sea are likely to result in gas being oversold; and, in view of the danger that this will cause to consumers at certain times of the year, if he will introduce legislation to limit the publicity given to such claims.

No, Sir. I have made it clear in the House and elsewhere that we do not yet know how much gas will be obtained from the North Sea. But this is a matter of public interest, on which comment and speculation about what might be found is inevitable.

Is not the Minister aware that the ballyhoo surrounding the finding of natural gas can lull the consumer into a false sense of security? Is he not also aware that the Chief Engineer of the Gas Board intimated last week that it will take from 7 to 10 years before natural gas can be used in this country? Is he not also aware that it costs between——

Order. I think that that is enough to be aware of.

I think that the position is fairly clear. The amount of North Sea gas already known to exist will be of very real value to the community here. Some of it will be available next year, but the sort of very large-scale supplies to which some people have referred are a matter of conjecture. At the moment, no one knows how much is there.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any North Sea gas brought ashore will be distributed through the grid of the Gas Council and the gas boards?

The whole question of use is something that will have to be considered in the light of greater knowledge of North Sea gas and the considerations that follow.

asked the Minister of Power what was the total number of civil servants employed by his Department full time and part time, respectively, at the last convenient date; and what increases or decreases these figures represent on the comparable figures for October, 1964, and August, 1965.

The numbers were 1,676 and 58 on 1st July, eleven more and four less, respectively, than in October, 1964, and 36 less and four less than in August, 1965.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary agree that, in view of the national economic emergency, it is very much in the national interest that the number of civil servants in his Department, and in all Departments, should be kept as low as is consistent with efficiency? Will he give his estimate of what the effect on the number of civil servants needed in his Department would be if the Government's policy with regard to the nationalisation of steel were to be implemented?

There is another Question on that subject on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Power if he will state the extent of the investment cuts in the coal, gas and electricity industries arising from Her Majesty's Government's new policy; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power (1) if he will give details of how the cuts in public expenditure will apply to capital expenditure by the Gas Council;

asked the Minister of Power in view of the cut back in expenditure in the public sector, if he will tabulate in the Official Report which capital projects will now be held up or postponed by the Central Electricity Generating Board; what is the total value of these cuts; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power (1) if he is aware of concern by consumers and would-be consumers that because of enforced reductions in capital expenditure the nationalised electricity and gas industries will not be able to meet their supply obligations; and if he will make a statement to offset the adverse effect on the trading position of these industries;

With permission, I will answer this Question and Questions Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 24 together.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Question Nos. 15 and 16 are materially different from the others now being answered, may I submit that they should not be taken with them?

It is a matter for the Minister.

As to the extent of the cuts for each industry, I would refer to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on 25th July. I am not yet able to say where the cuts will fall, but essential industrial investment by the nationalised industries will go on, and the cuts should not seriously affect the industries' ability to meet their supply obligations.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that many of us on this side very much regret these cuts in investment in the public sector? Is he further aware that the major cuts announced, £10 million for the Gas Council, £10 million for the National Coal Board, and so on, smack of back-of-an-envelope planning carried out during nocturnal hours in the Treasury? Can he tell the House how far he personally was consulted before the cuts were announced?

These figures were not arrived at by the Treasury but by the Ministry of Power on the basis of information available to us. There was no question of a calculation on the back of an envelope. They were notified to the chairmen of nationalised boards, who are discussing them with us.

Does the Minister recall that the Prime Minister said on 20th July that the programme for investment in the nationalised industries has been carefully scrutinised in the past? Can he confirm that consultations with the chairmen of the National Coal Board and the Gas Council were started before the announcement of 20th July?

The consultations have taken place since then. Prior to that time the figures were fixed in regard to the ability of the industry to play its part in a major economic crisis. We have no reason to assume that the chairmen of the nationalised industries are aggrieved.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that because of the nature of electric power construction these cuts can have no practical effect for nine or 12 months, so that they will have no effect on current balance of payments difficulties and by the time they have effect we shall probably need to expand the economy? Is not the whole exercise an example of how not to run an economy?

The cuts are mainly in distribution rather than generation. They will not have an immediate effect because they are cuts on future investment. We are quite convinced that we can meet this problem. It will be difficult obviously, but economic crises are difficult.

Can the Minister state whether the 10 per cent. margin to which he referred was before or after the cuts were announced, and whether in successive winters—two or three winters hence—there will be enough capacity to meet peak demand? Is there not a danger of power cuts in the winters going forward?

No, this is not a question of cutting the safety margins. These are very large amounts of money in terms of cash, but they are relatively small in relation to total investment.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that, as a result of the Question and the Answer, it is time that he presented to the House a national fuel policy?

As I explained as recently as last Tuesday, we have every intention of providing a fuel policy both in the short and in the long term. It would be absurd to think that one can produce a realistic fuel policy in a matter of weeks taking into account new developments.

Will the cuts take full account of the return on capital employed by the nationalised industries compared with that employed by private industry?

This would not be affected, but that is another question.

As to the industry's capabilities of meeting consumer needs, has my right hon. Friend made any estimate of the electrical and coal-burning appliances which are being sold? Does he not think that the cuts should make him ascertain whether the industry will be capable of meeting the demand for all the appliances which will come into use in future?

No, there is no reason to suppose that cuts of this level are going g to have the sort of catastrophic consequences which hon. Members are implying. There are difficulties, but there is no reason to suppose that these cuts will involve any increase in the insecurity of power supplies.

asked the Minister of Power how many extra civil servants will be required as a result of the nationalisation of steel; and what their annual cost will be.

The Iron and Steel Board will be wound up and there will be some J movement of staff from the Board to the f Corporation and possibly to the Ministry; but it is too early to say what the overall result will be.

Is it not absolutely ludicrous in the present economic situation at a time like this in the history of our country that the Government should be bringing in this absurd, irrelevant Measure without making an estimate of the increased turnover which will flow from it?

I think the hon. Member did not follow the Answer. It is not at all clear that there will be any increase in staff. The purpose of steel nationalisation is to increase the efficiency of the industry and to help it to contribute materially to economic needs.

Is it not true that under the existing organisation of the steel industry the Federation has a bureaucracy of about 500 staff and the Iron and Steel Board has about 120, whereas previously under public ownership there were never more than 20 civil servants working for the organisation?

I understand that to be the case.

asked the Minister of Power if he will request the Iron and Steel Board under Section 16 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, to report to him on the value of each major capital project being undertaken by steel companies scheduled in the Iron and Steel Bill, the method of financing of each such project, and the estimated cost in the years ending 31st December, 1966, and 31st December, 1967, respectively; if he will tabulate this information in the OFFICIAL REPORT; and which projects will be cut back or postponed as a result of the measures to cut back capital expenditure in the public sector.

Section 16 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, does not empower me to call for information of this kind.

Can the Minister state how the capital projects already announced for the steel industry will now be financed, whether his Ministry will be called upon to finance projects already announced, and whether there is enough money in the "kitty" for doing so? If not, is he not well aware that people in the industry will suffer from loss of capital investment in an industry which last week the Minister stated needed it?

There is no reason why the industry cannot continue to raise finance in this way. Projects are going through at this moment and finance is rising. The difficulty I am in in answering the Question is that the Act which the hon. Member's party passed gave me no power to require the information for which the hon. Member asks.

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that the rig, "Mr. Louie", which under licence from him, was drilling for oil in the North Sea, was recently found by divers to have developed damage to one of its legs and was thereupon sent to Bremerhaven in Germany for repairs; and if he will make it a condition of future licences granted by him that such repairs should be carried out in Great Britain.

My right hon. Friend has been informed of the damage to the drilling rig "Mr. Louie". He does not consider it would be appropriate to make it a condition of future licences that repairs to equipment should be carried out at any particular place.

Is it not inconsistent with the financial state of the country to refrain from putting into the licence a condition requiring that repairs of that kind should be done in this country instead of being sent abroad?

It is certainly a pity that the state of the heavy engineering shipbuilding industry had not been got into a form in which it could contribute substantially to the North Sea exploration programme. Plainly it would be unwise at this stage to hold up the exploration simply to keep the work in this country.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not one of the gas rigs ordered from the British shipbuilding industry for operations in the North Sea was delivered on time? What steps has he taken in conjunction with his right hon. Friend, in response to requests from the shipbuilding industry, to see that greater efficiency is ensured in future orders and that they go to British industry in future?

My right hon. Friend makes it plain to all licensees his wish that they should make the maximum use of British resources in the North Sea exploration programme. The detailed organisation of the shipbuilding industry is a question for another Department.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Power if he will issue a general direction, in the public interest, to the National Coal Board to deal more speedily with repairs and other faults in National Coal Board houses and to ensure that they make sufficient funds available for this purpose.

No, Sir. But if my hon. Friend has any specific case in mind, I suggest he writes to the Chairman of the National Coal Board.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but may I enlist his further support in this matter? Is he aware that this is the subject of repeated complaint in many parts of Warwickshire. If the delay in this repair work turns out to be due to lack of funds, will he agree to ask the N.C.B. to make funds available? If it is not due to lack of funds, will he ask the National Coal Board to expedite the carrying out of repairs?

I understand that the National Coal Board is not aware of any shortage of funds in this respect, and I have had no other representations on the matter. If my hon. Friend cares to raise the matter with the National Coal Board, I am sure that he will get every attention.

asked the Minister of Power how far the National Coal Board has extended its interest in retail distribution of coal between the years 1957 to 1966.

For most of this period there was virtually no change in the amount of the National Coal Board's business in retail distribution. The Board is now seeking to increase its participation in the trade to achieve a higher degree of rationalisation.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but is he not aware that our miners resent the fact that the cost of coal distribution is higher than the cost of the actual production of the coal? In the interests of the consumers and of the miners, will he not consider accelerating the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board on the cost of the retail distribution of coal?

The N.C.B.'s rationalisation plan is going ahead. Its bulk supply depots are coming into operation in increasing numbers. As my hon. Friend says, the Prices and Incomes Board will before long present a report on coal distribution costs.

Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the most recent inquiry into the cost of the retail distribution of coal it was proved that the retail cost of distribution by cooperative societies was no lower than anyone else's?

Co-operative societies are quite major distributors who are playing their part in operating some of the bulk supply depots.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction to the Coal Board to halt all scheduled pit closures in order to restore confidence to men currently employed in the coalmining industry.

No. Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware of the serious continuing drain of manpower from the mining industry and, arising from that, the real danger that we shall not be able to meet fuel requirements in future? In the light of these circumstances, is it not absolutely essential to restore confidence in the industry so that it may meet these requirements in future?

This matter has been raised on many occasions. I have felt for a long time that the cause of the drift from the industry is not lack of confidence but alternative employment opportunities. As some evidence of that, last week my hon. Friend quoted a figure of 12·5 per cent. reduction in the rate of drift from the pits. In the most recent eight-week period the reduction has been 15·7 per cent. compared with the same period last year.

In view of the fact that yesterday my right hon. Friend showed reluctance to estimate the tonnage for 1967 because he was not aware of certain trends in the industry, would it not be wise to show a little more reluctance about closing pits at this juncture?

One thing which causes the coal mining industry enormous damage is if it tries to run on the basis of keeping open pits which are a burden on the industry, but there has been a considerable decrease in the rate of the drift from the pits.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, since the wastage is greatest from the most economic pits, the Prime Minister's phrase about the need for a manpower shake-out as applied to the coal-mining industry as a basis for justifying capital cuts was a particularly inept and meaningless phrase?

The first part of that supplementary question is not accurate. Therefore the second part does not apply.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no import of coal during the coming winter?

That is another question.

asked the Minister of Power if he will provide details of pits initially designated as category B in 1965 and now regarded as being in the A class.

I understand the National Coal Board has decided that no useful purpose would be served by revising the classification of pits for the time being, but B pits will continue to operate as long as they can do so efficiently and economically.

Regardless of the criteria which apparently are taken into account in such classifications, is my hon. Friend aware that this is another reason why there is under-selling of confidence in the industry, when men working in a B pit in fear of the pit closing naturally seek alternative employment outside the industry rather than stay in it and be transferred to other pits? In these circumstances, can these classifications be altered in the national interest?

As my right hon. Friend has just said, the drift of manpower from the pits is falling. Men working in B pits have in many cases made major efforts to increase the efficiency and economy of operation of those pits, and this has undoubtedly increased the life of the pits.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to increase exports of coal to Scandinavia.

No, Sir; the National Coal Board is already making every effort to get good export business wherever it can, including Scandinavia.

Is the Minister aware that these exports are being held up because of the lack of decision on the part of the National Coal Board as to which Humber port to use? Does the Minister appreciate that the coal appliances in the Hull docks are not being renewed because of this lack of decision?

The main problem about coal exports for Scandinavia is not so much this factor but the availability of cheap Polish coal. It is not enough just to export coal. One must be able to export it at prices which are commercially attractive.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether, and to what extent, Her Majesty's Government will assist the Government of Malawi to resite the capital of the country at Lilongwe.

The answer to die first part of the Question is, No; the second part does not therefore arise. Britain is, of course, already providing Malawi with substantial aid both in support of her budget and for the productive development of the country.

Is the Minister aware that Dr. Banda is personally committed to this project, on good economic and geographical grounds, that he is, far more than most African leaders, a supporter of British policies, and that it is sometimes a good idea to back one's friends? Is this not a case where political as well as economic considerations should be borne in mind?

I fully appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but in our deployment of aid we have to give priority to the most productive development which will reduce Malawi's present dependence on Britain for budgetary assistance. The hon. Gentleman should remember that at the moment we are meeting about one-third of Malawi's total annual budgetary expenditure.

Without discussing the merits of this proposal, should not the Minister, when allocating our limited money available for overseas aid, favour those countries which treat us with friendship and courtesy in preference to those which do nothing but abuse us and insult us?

I take into account all relevant considerations.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will give an assurance that aid to India will not be reduced as a result of the cuts in overseas spending arising out of Her Majesty's Government's new economic measures, in view of the special hardships facing the Indian people as a result of famine.

I cannot at this stage make any statement on the details of the reduction in Government expenditure overseas announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Nor is it customary to state in one year what the level of our aid to India will be in the following year. Her Majesty's Government have great sympathy with the Indian people at this time of food shortage, and I can assure the hon. Member that the difficulties to which he refers will be fully taken into account.

When will the Minister be able to give a precise estimate of the size of the cut which is to be made in his Ministry's spending overseas?

The point was to some extent dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the debate on the economic measures last week. What we do know is the size of the cut which can be contained within the programme, but the exact allocation of the cut between countries and between types of aid needs a good deal of very careful consideration. I shall certainly expedite it as much as possible.

That is exactly the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) wanted to probe. When shall we know what the precise details of this cut will be?

These discussions will naturally take a little time, but I shall certainly let the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues know at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether aid to Zambia will be reduced as a result of the cuts in overseas spending arising out of Her Majesty's Government's new economic measures.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow), Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), and Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on 26th July.

Will the Minister remember that the Zambian Government in recent months have taken a number of measures which have directly harmed our economy? At a time when financial stringency is forcing us to cut down our overseas aid, is it not a luxury to subsidise those who seek to harm us?

There are many difficulties in this situation. The hon. Gentleman should not overlook the fact that the Zambian Government and ourselves have been seeking to achieve the same end, which is the end of the illegal regime in Rhodesia. It would be wholly inappropriate for me to anticipate the cuts—or possible cuts—in the case of one country, from which it must not be deduced that any specific country at the moment is in mind.

Could not this large and increasing expenditure be ended by reaching agreement with Mr. Smith?

asked the Minister of Technology if he will give details of the cut of £2 million in the investment programme of the Atomic Energy Authority.

The Authority is now working out the ways and means by which the £2 million reduction in its programme is to be achieved in 1967–68.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on the basis of the 1966–67 capital expenditure figures for the A.E.A., this represents nearly a 20 per cent. cut? Is he aware that it is extremely difficult for right hon. and hon. Members to evaluate the importance of this cut to the future of the A.E.A., because we do not get any details of the capital expenditure programme of the A.E.A.? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving this information to the House in the future?

I will look at the second point again. The hon. Gentleman's percentages are wrong, because this reduction is contemplated in the field of civil R. & D., which was running at between £47 million and £50 million. This should be looked at in the context of the 1967–68 figures.

Can we have an assurance that the prototype fast-breeder reactor programme will not be cut?

In the first instance, it is for the Chairman to look at the situation in the light of the reduction we have asked him to make, but there would be no policy changes of that importance without it being brought to my notice and to the House.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive the Report of the Committee which is investigating the future of Culham, and is it likely that the Committee will recommend a reduction in the size of the effort devoted to fusion?

That is another question, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has tabled a Question about it.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will pay an official visit to Scotland.

Yes, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend in particular visit those in research facilities and in industries working on computer-aided design?

There are a number of establishments for which the Ministry of Technology is responsible in Scotland, and I have it in mind to visit a number of them. I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Will the right hon: Gentleman bear in mind on his Scottish visit that the computer industry, both in Scotland and in England, is being held up in its development by the shortage of both scientific and technical staff? Would he look round at the many establishments for which he is responsible to see if it is possible to encourage some of the staff in the 30–40 age band to move into industry, particularly in electronics and computers?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the problems which has to be dealt with is the optimum deployment of our very scarce supply of skilled people.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the undertakings given by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, a Government-sponsored body, concerning the price at which shares and stock were to be redeemed if they were so redeemed before their respective final redemption dates; and if he will honour these undertakings.

No. I am not aware of any such undertaking.

Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer appreciate that these undertakings were given by a Government-sponsored body and that they are regarded as a contractual debt on the Government? Does he not realise that the repudiation of this debt does more damage to confidence in the Government and in sterling than anything else that the Government can do?

That simply is not true. The Agency sold the shares. It did not assume the obligations. The obligations were the responsibility of the companies which issued the shares.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of civil servants employed by his Department full time and part time, respectively, at the last convenient date; and what increases or decreases these figures represent on the comparable figures for October, 1964 and August, 1965.

1,594 full-time and 89 part-time on 1st July, 1966. Allowing for staff transferred with their work, these are 67 and 7 more than in October, 1964 and 54 and 9 more than in August, 1965.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered making a substantial reduction in the number of employees in this Department with a view to setting a good example to other employers of nonproductive labour?

No, Sir, particularly as the increase was mainly designed to strengthen the divisions which advise Departments on the improvement of management services and efficiency.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government are proposing to introduce an autumn Budget.

No, Sir. I shall continue to watch the movement of the economy and be ready to take any measures which the situation demands.

As we have now had five Budgets and mini-Budgets in 21 months, one every four months, would it not be bang on target if the Government produced another Budget in November? Should not the Chancellor have an autumn Budget in order to clear up the mess of the present Budget?

I hope that the hon. Member will now proclaim that the measures which are likely to carry us into surplus in 1967 are such as should command the support of everybody in this country and outside it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House would welcome an autumn Budget designed- among other things to secure an element of income redistribution? Is he further aware that a policy designed to secure income redistribution would gather much more support for an incomes standstill?

I am all in favour of greater productivity, but perhaps not in the direction of further Budgets. As to the measures which have been taken to ensure that a prices and incomes policy is successful, I can think of at least four basic measures which have been taken during the last 21 months which have had a substantial effect on the redistribution of income.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial or other incentives he is now planning for individuals, whether weekly or monthly paid, especially in industry who make extra and successful efforts to increase their production.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave to him on the 26th July.

The Chief Secretary did not answer the Question. I asked him what incentives he had given and he answered to say that he would consider that. I am asking what incentives the Government have given or are proposing to give, as their every action in the last 22 wasted months has been a disincentive.

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion. I repeat my right hon. Friend's reply and remind the hon. Gentleman of the measures which have recently been announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, because our first aim is to reduce spending abroad and at home in order to redeploy resources and to assist our balance of payments to ease the pressure on the economy. These are the first priorities.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much each year the £11,000 million of the United Kingdom's overseas assets is being reduced by the capital levy of the 25 per cent. enforced investment premium.

I assume that the Question refers to the Exchange Control rule under which the equivalent in specified currency of 25 per cent. of the proceeds of sale of a foreign currency security must be sold for sterling at the official rate of exchange. As I said in my Budget speech, this rule added over £70 million to the reserves last year.

Is the Chancellor aware that in effect this is chiselling off that amount from the overseas investments of the country of which the Prime Minister made so much on his last visit but five to the United States?

I disagree with that interpretation. What is being done is to ensure that investors who have the privilege of selling their overseas securities at the investment currency premium surrender 25 per cent. of it to the official reserves. That seems to be a very good thing in present circumstances, and I do not think that there is any widespread objection to it.

Is not the Chancellor aware that over the five years ending 1964 the United Kingdom has been a net importer of long-term capital on private account from the non-sterling area and that it is the interest paid on the private importation of capital by the overseas sterling area which is depleting the reserves and not, as he seems to think, the long-term export of capital from this country?

I saw the hon. Gentleman's letter in The Times and he is now trying to make the point again, but, alas, it has nothing to do with this Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the report to him on the Governor of the Bank of England's discussion with the three major credit card companies, Enocard, American Express, and Diners Club to support his policy of restricting foreign spending to £50; and what new restraint on personal spending in this regard he proposes to impose.

Credit card holders must be subject to similar restrictions on travel expenditure as other people. The companies have made certain proposals to this end which are being considered.

When shall we know what those proposals are? Is the Chancellor satisfied that he will not have to impose further restraints on personal spending both at home and abroad?

There is no question of further restraints. Credit card facilities, if they can be used for these purposes, must be contained within the limits announced. We hope to reach a final decision shortly. There have already been two meetings with the companies concerned and we are trying to get the matter decided as quickly as possible.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many associations or organisations, such as the General Nursing Council and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists, remain to be designated within the framework of the Selective Employment Tax; and when a decision will be reached.

No amendment is proposed to provide for refunds to these two bodies.

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman answered the whole of the Question? I quoted those two organisations only as examples. Is it not absolutely absurd that the General Nursing Council and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists should be regarded as service industries when their personnel are urgently needed in the hospital services?

They are services. I did not answer the rest of the Question because I was not clear to what other class of bodies the hon. Lady was referring. There are many bodies which do useful work as services but which will have to meet the cost of the tax. We cannot discriminate between them, apart from the exemption which we have already made in respect of charities.