asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that announcements by nationalised industries of fundamental changes in investment policies and proposals, involving large sums of public money are preceded or rapidly followed by statements to Parliament by the appropriate Minister.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give instructions that all announcements of major changes in investment plans of nationalised industries should be made in the first instance to Parliament.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will in future arrange that statements announcing major revisions in the investment plans of the nationalised industries should be made to Parliament.

Programmes for one year ahead are published in the annual White Paper on Loans from the Consolidated Fund, and major developments in policy are announced by the responsible Ministers. Since it is not the practice to announce long-term investment programmes, the question of announcing revisions does not arise.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, on 16th February, he gave some firm figures about capital expenditure by the electricity industry? How is it that a few weeks later the electricity authority can announce a cut of £50 million in the electricity investment programme without anything being said to this House, except allegations by the Chancellor in his Budget speech that economic services are going to he expanded?

The answer is that I gave the programme for one year ahead and this is a long-term revision which has taken place. It extends into the early years of the 1970s.

Why were these three Questions transferred by the Prime Minister to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why does not the Prime Minister answer them himself, as it is clearly a matter affecting every Department responsible for nationalised industries?

I am not sure whether that is a question for me, but perhaps he thought that I would be better at answering it—in which case the hon. Gentleman and his supporters should have no complaints. The Treasury takes responsibility for the nationalised industries' programmes. Although the hon. Gentleman may want to be shot down regularly by the Prime Minister, there is no reason why we should assist him in his attempts at suicide.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria govern the fixing of prices by the Crown Estate Commissions when tidal land which is otherwise undeveloped and valueless is sold to local authorities and other bodies which need it for development made possible by reclamation schemes undertaken by them at their own expense.

The Commissioners follow the advice of the Inland Revenue Valuation Office as to the market value, excluding any element of monopoly value.

Since the Chancellor said only yesterday that he intends to help local authorities wherever possible, and since his colleague, the Minister of Transport, has also said that it is her intention to help port authorities, is this not a singularly unhelpful way of going about it?

I am afraid that we cannot help local authorities by breaking the law. The Crown Estate Act requires the Commissioners not to sell or dispose of land except for the best consideration which can reasonably be obtained. An assurance was given to the House when the Bill went through that they would follow this procedure by seeking the advice of the Inland Revenue Valuation Office and accepting it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the poster exhibited last year in post offices, inland revenue and other Government offices explaining the way in which the taxpayer's money is spent.

The exceptional lateness of the 1966 Budget prevented the timely exhibition of the poster last year. The series is being resumed this year.

Why did the Chief Secretary tell me on 31st January that such posters were already displayed in my constituency and the Postmaster-General tell me on 10th March that no such posters were exhibited?

I do not think that the Chief Secretary was referring exclusively to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. His Answer referred to the normal practice.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now move to revise the mileage allowance rate paid to Members of Parliament using their private cars on parliamentary business.

If the hon. Member thinks that the time has come when such a revision would be justified, it is open to him to seek the support of the Services Committee.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that promising Reply. As the option to use public transport is largely theoretical, would he not consider that an early revision in conformity with the actual costs of running a vehicle is long overdue?

My Answer was intended to be non-committal, and I would rather keep it that way.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what figures are available for public expenditure in 1966 on military defence, research, housing and environmental services, and social services; what were the corresponding figures for 1960 and 1963; and what estimates he will give of the Government's intended expenditure in these fields in 1967, 1968, 1970, and 1972.

Public expenditure on military defence in 1966 was £2,219 million; outturn figures for 1966 for the other services will be pubished in the National Income Blue Book later in the year. I will circulate figures for 1960, 1963 and 1965 in the OFFICIAL REPORT and on future years I would refer my hon. Friend to the exercise on public expenditure programmes which I mentioned in my Budget Speech. [Vol. 744, Col. 990.]

Would not the Chancellor agree that our great national problem is not a shortage of resources but the task of redeploying them from useless military production to help education, housing and social welfare; service to the community generally?

If my hon. Friend had asked me for details for various financial years, I could have given him the percentages. They would have shown that, taking the financial year 1962–63 as against 1965–66, military defence expenditure increased by 17 per cent., housing and environmental services by 41 per cent. and social services by 37 per cent. It therefore looks as though the redeployment we want is taking place.

Concerning future expenditure, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is one of the duties, perhaps the first duty, of the Treasury to keep a continuing review of these matters? Would the right hon. Gentleman say in what respect the review he forecast in his Budget differs from what goes on anyway?

Yes, Sir. This special review is taking place in order to prepare for the Estimates for next year in the light of my attempts—and I hope that they will be successful—to try to regulate the economy and to make room for growth in private investment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that His Holiness the Pope has recently described the arms race as an "intolerable scandal" and has urged all Governments to reduce expediture so that some of it might be diverted to curing world poverty? How far does the Chancellor agree with that?

Not only do I respectfully agree with it, but I am glad to say that we are one of the nations carrying it out.

Would the right hon. Gentleman stop the practice of giving figures of Government expenditure in terms of constant prices on a 1964 base, which tends to disguise the fact that Government expediture is rocketing out of control?

Although that is a different question, the answer is "No, certainly not".

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the national income in 1966 went to rent, interest and profit; what proportion went to wages and salaries; what were the corresponding figures for 1960 and 1963; and what steps he is taking to orientate national income to wage and salary earners.

As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the last part of the Question, the Government's economic policy is designed to ensure fairness in the distribution of incomes between the various groups.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it is time to speed up redistribution and that we should try to replace the crude and outdated instrument of Income Tax by a system of direct taxation, coupled with higher Surtax and higher death duties—[Interruption.]—allied to considerably increased social welfare benefits, not forgetting the claims in this direction of the lowly paid workers?

Order. We must not have Budget speeches at Question time.

My hon. Friend has raised a number of interesting topics, but I doubt whether I could encompass a reply within terms which would meet with your approbation, Mr. Speaker.

Without seeking to introduce a sense of nostalgia to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), is it not a fact that rent, interest and profits have always been decried by hon. Gentlemen opposite? While the Government are doing everything possible to abolish profits, when will they do something about rent and interest?

If the hon. Gentleman—

I think that the supplementary was directed at me. The proportion of the total gross domestic income devoted to profits and incomes, including rent, declined from 33·4 per cent. in 1960 to 30·5 per cent. in 1966.

Not enough.

Income from employment increased from 66–6 per cent. to 69·5 per cent.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the objective of the Government's prices and incomes policy, in which the C.B.I. has been asked voluntarily to co-operate, that the share taken by wages and salaries shall go up while that taken by dividends shall fall?

That is not related to the Question I am answering and should be addressed to the First Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The answer, from the point of view of a mixed economy, is that which I gave clearly in my Budget speech, and I do not think that I could improve on the language I used there.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet reached a decision on the siting of the new Mint which will produce the 9,000 million coins required for change to decimal currency four years hence; and whether he will make a statement.

I cannot at present add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) on 7th March. [Vol. 742, c. 235.]

When is the Chancellor expecting to make a decision on this matter of massive industrial importance? Would not he agree that it is desirable, first, that new plant should go to the development areas and, secondly, that it should not be fragmented, making the same mistakes that were formerly made with the fragmenting of the large new strip mill, part in Scotland and part in South Wales?

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's view. As to the period of time, I think that I will be able to stand by the Answer I gave on 7th March, when I said that I hoped to make a statement within two months.

Would the Chancellor give an assurance that if the Mint is moved from London the development areas will be given priority, especially in view of the high unemployment rate in South Wales? Will he bear these matters in mind when considering moves of this sort, particularly the unemployment problems of this and similar areas?

I believe that it would be better for me to make a comprehensive statement at the time when a decision about the future of the Mint is taken.

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider a site in Ulster?

While it is desirable, where practicable, for establishments to be moved from London to the regions, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that considerably fewer coins would be required if the 10s. system were adopted instead of the Government's present proposal?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how many he expects the number of nonindustrial civil servants will increase by the end of 1967; and how this will compare numerically and as a percentage with December, 1964.

The Estimates for 1967–68 provide for an increase of about 7,500. By the end of March 1968 the total increase since December 1964 will be about 4,600 or 11 per cent.—all these figures excluding the Post Office.

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that it is highly desirable that this percentage is watched extremely carefully? Can he say what level in his view is an acceptable level, in view of the fact that it appears to be getting excessively high?

I agree that it must be closely watched, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is done. The question of the level must depend on the policies and decisions of the Government. If the hon. Gentleman finds these figures surprising, I would remind him that in the last four years of Conservative Administration the number of nonindustrial civil servants went up by 33,500.

In giving the main Answer the Financial Secretary gave the figure of 4,600. Did not he mean to say 46,000?

I am sorry. It was indeed a slip of the tongue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I intended to say 46,000 and thought that I had done so. That is the figure which should be compared with the figure of 33,500.

Can my hon. Friend say how many of these people are being used to watch, for example, Bristol Siddeley?

Not without notice.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will withdraw Inland Revenue Stencil No. 85 issued by Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes, London Provincial 2 District, requesting details of taxpayers' assets; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Inland Revenue Stencil No. 85 was used by Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes, London Provincial 2 District, since no statutory authority existed for the information sought; and what action has been taken to prevent a re-occurrence of such incidents.

The stencil in question was withdrawn from use at the beginning of January.

In view of the Government's unhappy tendency to require the public to regard White Papers as though they had the force of law, will not the hon. and learned Gentleman take this occasion to regret that this stencil, requiring submission by taxpayers for which there was no statutory obligation whatever, was ever issued by the Treasury?

I take this occasion to thank those hon. Members who have drawn my attention to this point. When the matter was last raised at Question Time I said that I would look at it to see whether any further instruction was required. I have done that, and was so satisfied. A circular has been issued to all tax officers making it clear that they should not give the impression that any statutory authority exists for demanding these lists.

Surely there is some cause for regret, and should someone not be reprimanded in this case, where taxpayers have been asked to list their private possessions without statutory authority? Will the Financial Secretary express his regret in this respect?

There is no occasion for any apology. Many taxpayers and their advisers will think it a useful practice and will continue to supply the information. Certainly I have every intention of doing so myself.

Will the Financial Secretary clarify one of his answers. I understood him to say that he had asked inspectors not to give the impression that any statutory authority exists for the question. Is the question still being asked?

Only in those cases where there is reason to think that such a list has been prepared—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is perfectly common practice for accountants to prepare lists of this kind, and very often it is to the mutual convenience of both the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue for the Revenue to have a copy of that list. In those cases, there is nothing improper in asking for it, and inspectors will be authorised to do so. What is being made clear is that there is no suggestion that there is any legal requirement to supply it.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, in practice, this sort of thing has gone on for a very long time, to the mutual convenience of taxpayers and the professional men dealing with their affairs?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Of course, that is right.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many rises have occurred in incomes exceeding £10,000 and between £5,000 and £10,000; how many new occupations have been created with salaries in these two categories since Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966 became operative; and how many rises have been prohibited under the provisions of that Act in respect of such categories.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases have occurred in earned incomes exceeding £5,000; how many new appointments have been created in these categories; and how many increases have been prohibited since Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966, became operative.

I regret that this information is not available.

Should it not be available? Is it not rather unsatisfactory, and how does my hon. and learned Friend expect us to have a fair incomes policy if we do not know what incomes there are in existence?

What we are concerned with is the collection of information of this kind as a result of analysing Income Tax returns. I am afraid that to try to extract this kind of information from tax returns would call for a quite disproportionate effort.

Would the Financial Secretary not agree that, apart from the high income groups to which my hon. Friend referred, there has been extensive evasion of the wage freeze by employers and higher-paid workers on specious grounds of promotion or increased responsibility, very much to the detriment of lower-paid workers who are in well-defined categories and cannot get increases?

I am not aware of such evidence, and I believe that surveys which have been carried out by management consultants indicate that, in the salary sphere, the standstill and severe restraint policy has been fully respected. I think that this has been mainly concerned with salaries between £2,500 and £5,000 a year, but I have no reason to think that the same does not apply to salaries in a higher range than that.

Have back bench hon. Members who have been promoted to Ministerial positions objected to increases in salary?

Is it not the case that under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget proposals relief is given to certain Surtax payers, as compared with the previous situation, which will cost the Exchequer a considerable sum of money? How do the Government justify that when they refuse reliefs to members of the population who are in difficult circumstances?

My hon. Friend is mistaken. There is no relief granted. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed that a one-year surcharge would he a one-year surcharge.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue a White Paper giving statistics from information available to him from tax returns and other sources of the distribution of privately-owned real property in the United Kingdom.

The available information is already published in the Annual Reports of the Inland Revenue.

Will my hon. and learned Friend arrange for this information to be more conspicuously displayed, because the gross inequality of wealth is one of the many things which hon. Members on this side of the House hope that the Government will put right?

I regret that there is not a great deal of information of the kind that my hon. Friend seeks. If it will assist him, such information as there is will be found in Tables 165 and 167 of the 109th Report.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the information which has been prepared or is likely to be prepared from this kind of source is bound to be distorted by the absence of information on industrial pension funds and other investments on behalf of wage earners?

As we are dealing with privately-owned real property, I hardly think so.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations were made to him about the decision of the Ford Motor Company Limited to pay an increased dividend to its parent company out of reduced profits; and what answer he gave.

The dividend referred to was not subject to the standstill. It was declared and paid in April, 1966.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether such a dividend increase would have been approved if it had been paid by the company to United Kingdom shareholders?

The question does not arise. It is purely hypothetical, because this was outside the period of the standstill.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to agree to the foreign exchange cost of British troops in Germany after the expiry of the current Anglo-German offered agreement being offset in whole or in part by a German commitment to hold medium- or long-dated United Kingdom Government securities in its reserves; and if he will define medium- or long-term borrowing for this purpose.

No, Sir. The second part of the Question does not arise.

Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm that his recent statement that, in one way or another, the foreign exchange costs of British troops in Germany would be met in full was after all an idle bluff? Can he tell us, further, whether the Government still believe that the offset costs of American troops in the United Kingdom should not be included in this calculation?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is pleased or disappointed that we have recovered £72 million out of the £82 million. I suspect that it is larger than he thought and that that is the reason for his disappointment. As to the other parts of his supplementary question, the United States, Germany and ourselves have agreed to make statements on the same day. Therefore, I should prefer not to be drawn into details at the moment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what savings in expenditure in foreign exchange are to be secured by the withdrawal of British troops from West Germany in the near future; how the balance is to be covered; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer my hon. Friend to my statement in my Budget Speech. As I explained then, I cannot give further details till the negotiations are complete.—[Vol. 744, c. 981.]

Yes, but why have the Government retreated from their statement last year that they would require the offset to be in full? Is my right hon. Friend aware that bringing home only one brigade out of nine is not good enough and will leave a large deficit?

As I have already explained, we are covering £72 million out of the £82 million, approximately, by including the redeployment of some troops. This seems to me to be a satisfactory start to our long-term objective.

In assessing the financial effects of this withdrawal of troops from Germany, has the Chancellor of the Exchequer taken into account the amount of land which will be required in this country for our troop operations, the compensation for damage to that land, and so on?

Yes; these calculations have been made in assessing budgetary costs, but we are concerned also with balance of payments costs.

The Chancellor said in his Budget statement that part of the balance would be covered by American arms purchases in this country. Since all American arms purchases are already being offset against the cost of the F111 and other American aircraft, how can this be done?

I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman must wait until I make a full statement when the three parties to the agreement have concluded their total negotiations.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he is giving to bringing the level of direct taxation into line with that ruling in the countries of the European Economic Community, in order to facilitate this country's entry into the Community.

As I said in my Budget statement—[Vol. 744, c. 1002]—preliminary work on these matters is in hand.

If the Government are really serious about an early entry into the Community, ought not work to be very far advanced in modifying a position in which, according to the Financial Secretary, a man with a higher salary in this country keeps only one-third of what his European opposite number keeps?

It depends what is meant by a "higher salary". At £5,000 per annum, for example, someone in this country would retain more than his opposite number in West Germany. But perhaps that is not a "higher salary".

Do I understand, from what my right hon. Friend said about preliminary arrangements for the reorientation of direct and indirect taxation, that we are to take it that the Government are proposing some day to reduce direct taxation and increase indirect taxation, which will fall heavily on those with low incomes?

I do not think that that deduction could have been drawn from my Answer. Certainly I should think that the country ought to consider for a very long time before it alters its direct tax arrangements in the way proposed. It seems to me that some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are less concerned with getting into the Common Market than with getting reduced the tax burdens on their highly paid friends.

Has the Chancellor made any preparation for the introduction of an added value tax, in accordance with Common Market practice?

No, Sir. After all, we do not yet know whether we are going into the Common Market, nor do we know whether a value added tax will be accepted by Common Market countries. Apart from putting preliminary work in hand to ensure what would be necessary, I think that it would be foolish of me to go further than that.

Before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor allows himself to be drawn into detailed arguments about adjustments in direct taxation to harmonise with the practice on the Continent, will he bear in mind that in E.E.C. countries indirect taxation is a much higher imposition on ordinary working people than in this country? The sales tax and things like that are a fundamental distinction, as against the practice in this country. I hope that he will not be led astray by people on the other side of the House who do not want to get into the Common Market as much as they want to get out of their tax obligations?

My hon. Friend seems to be repeating my previous answer. I am very ready to get into a discussion on this. I am not ready to see the substantial transfer of burdens from the wealthiest in this country on to the backs of others under the pretext of getting into the Common Market.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revenue from tariffs on imports from European Economic Community countries for 12 months to the latest convenient date.

Protective duty receipts are not identified by country of origin of the goods concerned and I cannot give a precise figure; but for 1966 it was of the order of £70 million.

Is it not rather important to ascertain this figure, since presumably this will be a direct loss to the Exchequer in the event of our joining the Common Market? Is it not likely that this will be a very much larger figure as the country of origin of imports will tend to switch from other countries to European countries?

I do not think that follows. It is one of the factors which will have to be taken into account, but there will be other offsets, including direct revenue ones, such as the additional tariffs on imports from other countries.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now considered the representations sent to him by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames in respect of a practice adopted by certain valuation officers in the Midlands in respect of cases involving sale of land prior to 6th April, 1967; whether this practice had his approval; and what steps he is taking to compensate persons subjected as the result of this practice to partial payment of an impost not in force at the material time.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend wrote to the right hon. Member on 23rd March. I cannot accept that valuation officers have adopted the practice he describes and the question of compensation does not arise.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his right hon. Friend's long, involved and rather entertaining letter. If I submit evidence to support this contention, in respect at any rate of one district valuer, will he take the necessary steps to have the decision reversed?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the establishment strength of Inland Revenue district valuers; and how far the number employed is below strength at present.

2,304 valuers were in post on 3rd April. There is no fixed complement.

How many extra district valuers does the hon. and learned Gentleman think will become necessary as a result of Measures of the last two years like the Land Commission Act and Capital Gains Tax?

It is impossible to estimate the number until we know the weight of work which will arise from the Land Commission, but obviously an increase will be required and vigorous steps are being taken to recruit and train more valuers.

Do the "vigorous steps" include the offering of higher salaries?

No, but they do include direct recruit to the main grade of more experienced qualified people.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take to ensure that in all contracts with the aircraft industry, Her Majesty's Government shall have access to the firms' accounts, both during and after any contract.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy with regard to obtaining access to contractors' accounts for Her Majesty's Government, both during and after any aviation contract.

It is the Government's intention to obtain the right to equality of information with the contractor when prices are being negotiated; and post-costing rights where these would be of material help in fixing fair and reasonable prices and in checking that the price-fixing system as a whole is working satisfactorily. Discussion is going on with industry on both points.

Can my right hon. Friend say how far the C.B.I. has come along to agree with his view and how soon he expects to make a decision on the matter, or is he waiting until the Public Accounts Committee and the independent inquiry report on the matter?

I hope that negotiations with the C.B.I. will be concluded successfully very shortly, but they are still going on and I cannot say more about the C.B.I.'s views at this stage.

Will my right hon. Friend give some attention to the system of the Department of Defence, United States, which gives very effective incentives towards increased efficiency as well as safeguards against rascality?

Yes, Sir. I believe there is a close integration of exchange of information on these matters, but perhaps my hon. Friend will question the Secretary of State for Defence on this particular issue.

Will the Chancellor assure us that he accepts that equality of information, although extremely important, is but one of three links in this problem, the other two being calculations of overheads and profit formula, as was made clear in the Lang Report? Will he make clear that all three will be dealt with? Will he also give proper attention to developing good contracting procedures?

While I am in favour of the last part of that supplementary question, I am not ready to relate to an agreement all post-costing rights to a revisior of the profit formula. That is a separate issue which can be raised by industry at any time and discussed with the Government, but this information should be conceded in any case.

Is not one of the recommendations of the Lang Report that equality of information should be obtained by the Government? Why has it taken the Chancellor and his colleagues two years to get round to deciding on this matter in principle?

I think that is a fair question, and maybe we should have been more ruthless with industry than we have been. If we should have been, I acknowledge our defect in this respect, but we have tried to get their cooperation, and I trust that now we are going to get it.

Will my right hon. Friend he ruthless now? Under the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939, he has power to ask for any books and papers to be made available, and then he has only to ask for a Ministerial Order. Will he make clear to the C.B.I. that he will use that power? Will he use it now?

This may have to be considered in suitable cases. The power is there if we cannot reach a satisfactory agreement with industry, but it is the job of the Government to work with industry if we can. I would therefore prefer to reach agreement than to use these powers. If it was impossible to get agreement with industry and I thought it necessary in the public interest to use these powers, of course they would be used.

Will the Chancellor answer my previous question about the calculation of overheads? When he speaks about being ruthless with industry, will he acknowledge that so far as this question was concerned it was February, 1966, before the Government began to get down to the job at all?

I do not think the hon. Member is right about the date, but if he wishes to have a debate on it I should be very happy indeed to do so. As regards overheads, this might be looked at too. At the moment the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is having negotiations on my behalf. I am concerned to see that public access to information is made available. I stand on that and the other questions can be looked at at any time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimate of central and local government expenditure, excluding debt interest, but including net lending to public corporations, for 1967–68.

£14,893 million.

Is the Chancellor aware that, even if he gets his 3 per cent. increase in growth this year, this will represent the highest proportion of our national product being taken by the central and local government in all our history? Is this the reason why his party's policies seem to be failing? Will he reverse this trend?

One day I hope to educate the hon. Member into seeing that public spending is not bad and private spending is not necessarily good. It depends on what it is spent on. That is what matters.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect which the steady rise in the expenditure of central and local governments will have on inflationary pressure in the economy.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my Budget statement.—[Vol. 744, c. 990.]

Would the Chancellor agree that it is not a question of private expenditure being bad and Government expenditure being good, but that this increase is taking place in a sphere which by its very nature does not contribute in a major way towards exports, which is his main problem?

I think that is a fair point. That is why I am very anxious to see private investment grow, because it is in that sector—private investment is about 27 per cent. of the total—that increased exports would come. I certainly accept that point.

If the Chancellor intends, as he said in his Budget Statement, to make room for the expected increase in private investment expenditure, what Government expenditure will he—to use his own words—rein back in order to make this improvement?

I do not want to continue last night's Budget debate now.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the percentage of total personal income distributed as wages and salaries, mixed income and property in 1966.

As the reply contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that social inequality is in fact on the increase in this country, and has been so for the past decade or more? Is he aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House want to see the trend reversed in the course of the lifetime of this Parliament?

I can assure my hon. Friend that it has been reversed. I refer him to figures which I gave in the Budget debate. Compared with the previous year, in 1966, National Insurance benefits went up by 8½ per cent., wages and salaries by 6 per cent., income of self-employed was unchanged, while rents, dividends and interest went up by 2½ per cent.

What percentage went to members of unions covered by the T.U.C.?

I am sure the hon. Member does not think that I have that figure in my head.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what saving in foreign exchange during the year ended 5th April, 1967, resulted from the £50 foreign currency limit applied to British people travelling abroad outside the sterling area; and what reduction in overseas travel by Britons outside the sterling area resulted therefrom; and whether he will restore the £250 limit on 1st June, 1967, or earlier.

Travel statistics for the year mentioned are not yet available. The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's Question is "No, Sir".

If these figures are not available, how did the Chancellor arrive at the conclusion in his Budget statement that the time was not propitious to be a little more liberal in allowances for British travellers outside the sterling area? Is he not aware that British travellers are now reduced to a humiliating position in Europe by his derisory allowances? Would he not be a little more liberal with a small "1"?

A number of reasons enabled me to reach the conclusion I have reached, for example, the applications for additional allowances which are being reduced—I hope the hon. Member has not suffered—as well as the efforts by the travel trade to arrange cheaper holidays. All these have contributed to a useful saving. In present circumstances, when I am still working for a balance of payments surplus this year, I do not think it would be right that other countries should believe that we can let up on a matter of this sort, when anybody can get a reasonable holiday abroad within the existing allowance.

In view of the very unsatisfactory Answer from the Chancellor, I give notice that I shall raise the matter again at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to ask for an extension of the repayment period of United Kingdom borrowings from the International Monetary Fund.

As I said in my Budget speech, the first drawing will be paid by the due date. On present prospects, I have no reason to believe that we shall not be able to repay the second drawing also or the due dates.—[Vol. 744, c. 976–7.]

Would not the Chancellor agree that the first task must be to get the bankers off our backs in order that we can resume economic expansion in this country and fulfil our election pledges? Will he not now consider making these payments this year by liquidating portfolio investments?

There is an arrangement now in which those who sell foreign securities pay a proportion of the foreign exchange into the Exchequer. That is producing a very useful income at present. I do not propose to carry it further than that now.

Does not the Chancellor find it intensely embarrassing when so many of his hon. Friends advocate devaluation and welshing on financial commitments?

I find that no more embarrassing than having to explain the policy of the hon. Gentlemen from Northern Ireland.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek power to place meters on one-armed bandits which would record the amount inserted and the return payments to the users, in order that the actual profits accruing to the owners of such machines could be taxed accordingly.

No, Sir.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is time that we knew something about what was happening in this field? There are widely fluctuating reports of the amount of profit, ranging from single £s to many hundreds of £s per week from these machines. We should know what is going on as regards the operation of these machines.

My hon. Friend's proposal would be very expensive both in terms of equipment and of manpower, and I doubt whether it would work very satisfactorily.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what authority income tax form C.T.62 is issued; and whether he is aware that this and other forms are throwing a burden on companies, which interferes with their task of increasing production.

The form is issued by the Board of Inland Revenue under its general responsibility for the care and management of the Income Tax. The use of this form will help both the Department and companies to review their end year liability.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this form has every appearance of being a form required by Statute and that in the case of many companies, small companies in particular, the filling in of the form is throwing a very heavy burden on the available manpower?

I have looked at the form. I see nothing on it to bear out the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. As regards the burden on companies, I think that all that many companies, if not most companies, will be required to do will be in effect to answer the two simple questions in section one of the form.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total revenue is obtained by taxes on inheritance.

Death duties produced 3⅓ per cent. of total tax revenue in 1966–67.

The Chancellor only last week was congratulating those who were capable of saving. Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the most important reasons for saving is to provide for one's widow? In those circumstances, should not the Chancellor at least have another look at this particular question?

I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will pay attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said. There are provisions within the existing Estate Duty law to relieve the burden on widows.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy towards efforts which are being made by the United States Central Intelligence Agency and other United States intelligence organisations to infiltrate and influence organisations which function in British administered territories for purposes of subversion of law and order.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the policy towards efforts which are being made by the United States Central Intelligence Agency and other United States intelligence bodies to influence and infiltrate organisations which function in British administered territories for purposes of subversion of law and order.

No, Sir. I know of no activities of this kind in British administered territories.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the involvement of the C.I.A. in British Guiana before independence; and, if he is not aware of that, does not this show a gross inefficiency in the British security services? If the British Government were aware of it prior to independence, why did not they take action to warn the Americans off and to prevent the "fiddler" constitution from being imposed?

The circumstances to which my hon. Friend is purporting to refer, and which have been the subject of certain Press comments recently, relate to events before October, 1964. I am not responsible for what happened in British administered territories before 16th October, 1964.

As these revelations have now been made, and have been proved up to the hilt, as far as I can see, would not my right hon. Friend now carry out a thorough investigation and at the same time indicate to the American authorities that we do not approve of this sort of activity and that they must keep out of our territory?

I am not in a position to refer to what happened before we had the responsibility for these matters; and these question, so far as they relate to that earlier period, should be put elsewhere. So far as British administered territories now are concerned, I have already said that I know of no activities of this kind. My hon. Friend can be pretty sure that, if there were any, I should.

Are not there many foreign originating bodies seeking to subvert law and order in British administered territories, and why is it only those coming from the United States which excite hon. Members opposite?

Where such subversive activities have occurred in this country and elsewhere, I am sure that it has had the backing of the whole House when the security service of this country has sought to deal with them. It has had the backing of half the House at any rate when we have tried to deal with subversive organisations subverting law and order in Rhodesia.

I concur entirely with what the Prime Minister has just said, but will not he consider that many of us regard very seriously the allegations which have been made that intervention was made by United States interests and money to overturn the Government of British Guiana at that time? Does not the Prime Minister recognise that he really ought to institute an inquiry as to whether these facts are correct and, if they are, to make representations to the United States Government that we intend this to be stopped? Will he not say to the United States Government quite clearly that we do not want the C.I.A. interfering in our affairs?

My hon. Friend will be aware that Guyana, now, is a self-governing territory for which we have no responsibility whatsoever. It is not for me to comment on the Press stories which my hon. Friend has obviously read, but they related to a period before we had any responsibility. If my hon. Friend could find a way of doing it, the right place to address such questions would be the Front Bench opposite—I would think almost certainly the Front Bench opposite below the Gangway.

Is the Prime Minister referring to me?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will initiate through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and elsewhere a campaign to reduce any emphasis upon nationalism in education, with a view to encouraging a sense of world comunity.

The United Nations Educatonal, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's entire programme already aims to create an environment in which a sense of world community can develop, Sir, but if my hon. Friend has any specific suggestions to make I would be happy to consider them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with all respect to Celtic nationalist romantics, nationalism is a transitional historical phase and public re-education in this matter is necessary to arouse the demand for world development which will be essential in the future?

Yes, Sir, and I believe that it is the declared position of all parties in the House that the ultimate aim of us all is world government. U.N.E.S.C.O. was set up at the end of the war specifically to inculcate a sense of world community, and some of the best minds of that time and since have been devoted to that task through the medium of U.N.E.S.C.O.

Will the Prime Minister direct the attention of these campaigners especially to Scotland and to Wales?

asked the Prime Minister if he will transfer the aviation functions of the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Technology.

No, Sir.

Is not the Prime Minister aware that the splitting up of this Ministry is giving rise to delays in decision on the ordering of aircraft?

No, Sir, there is no evidence to justify that. There were very long delays in the ordering of aircraft when the Ministry of Aviation was responsible both for the aviation operations of the airlines and for the aviation industry. To judge from some of the decisions taken, it might well have been better if the delays had been even longer.

As the Ministry of Technology now has greatly increased areas of interest, a policy which many of us strongly support, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be worth while publishing a Paper indicating clearly what the terms of reference of the Minister of Technology are?

I thought that this was well understood. My hon. Friend will recognise that it can do nothing but good for the aviation manufacturing industry that it should now come under a Department with wider responsibilities, as this means that aviation firms will have a chance to share in research and development work going beyond normal aviation responsibilities.

Is not the Prime Minister aware of the inordinately long delay over a decision about London's third airport? If this is not due to the splitting of Departmental responsibilities under the Board of Trade, what is the reason?

It is in no sense due to that, because this is a matter for exactly the same officials, who are now transferred to a different Department, and for the Ministers concerned. It has been a very difficult question. It took the previous Government a very long time to come to any view about it, and I do not apologise for the fact that we have been taking our time over it. When we can make an announcement, we shall do so.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between Government Departments in the matter of preventing oil pollution of British beaches; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 23rd March to a Question by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott)—[Vol. 743, c. 333.]—and to the White Paper, Command 3246, published on 4th April.

What steps have the Government taken to learn from French experience in combating pollution on Brittany beaches, and which Government Departments have taken such steps?

We and the French Government have been in close touch since long before the oil hit the Brittany beaches. We offered our help at that time and gave them a lot of practical advice based on our own experience. Equally, we shall learn from them. They, like us, have tried a whole series of measures, and some of theirs, like some of ours, have not been successful. But the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which has been unequivocally in charge of this operation from the beginning, will be glad to gain any experience from the French.