asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake to make a statement to the House after the next review of the United Kingdom economy by the International Monetary Fund in February, 1968.

The talks with the Fund next month and in July and November will be informal and confidential, and I cannot bind myself to make statements after them.

But if the right hon. Gentleman is a sort of puppet on a string with regard to the International Monetary Fund, should not this House be informed of the conditions which are laid down in relation to the economy?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's permise or the conclusion erected upon it.

What consultations took place with the I.M.F. before the review of public expenditure which was announced last week, and what consultations will take place with the I.M.F. during the preparation of the next Budget?

I had no consultations with the Fund prior to the review of public expenditure. There will be consultations in February, as the Answer implies and as the House knows, about the general economic situation, but this will not, of course, include detailed budgetary discussion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the tenth paragraph of the letter of intent sent by his predecessor to the International Monetary Fund on 23rd November, 1967, the under taking to keep the borrowing requirement below £1,000 million for 1968–69 includes money borrowed to finance further schemes of nationalisation.

Yes, Sir. Any Government payment that falls to be made in cash enters into the calculation of the borrowing requirement.

Has the right hon. Gentleman therefore taken into account the possible effect of the Transport Bill and other Bills now before the House in agreeing this figure of £1,000 million?

As I informed the House, all relevant considerations are taken into account.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what cuts he proposes to make in public spending in order that full advantage may be taken of the opportunities provided by devaluation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has now made with his review of public civil expenditure; whether he will now indicate what specific cuts will be made in 1968–69; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what cuts in Government expenditure it is now proposed to make as a result of the review announced on 18th December, 1967.

I refer the hon. Members to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday, 16th January, which was published as Command Paper No. 3515.—[Vol. 756, c. 1577–1620].

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that figures published yesterday show that the number of civil servants increased by 57,000 in the three years up to last October? If it is possible to make massive reductions in the Armed Forces, why is it not possible to make similar reductions in the size of the Civil Service, as opposed to just holding the numbers?

If it were possible to make reductions, I would be eager to do so, and I do not regard what we are laying down for the forthcoming year as being the last word in this respect, but I must have regard to the duties imposed on the Civil Service. I well remember, having been a Departmental Minister myself recently, the pressures which were put upon me from both sides of the House to improve recruitment in many aspects of Government service.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures so far published still leave a number of ambiguities? Can he tell us what the figures in the first column in his table of public expenditure for 1967–68 would have been before allowance had been made for the £400 million of cuts announced before Christmas, since it is far from clear what the situation was?

That is a somewhat hypothetical and detailed question. If the hon. Gentleman would put it down, I should be glad to answer.

But would my right hon. Friend not agree that the relevant rearrangements are those which will release resources for the export drive? Would he, therefore, not listen to those voices which urge him to produce psychological cuts which show only that we are being harsh to our own people?

All cuts which produce results are of relevance to the situation, but I intend to have regard to the facts as well as to psychology of the situation.

The right hon. Gentleman said that my Question was hypothetical and detailed. What was hypothetical about it and is £400 million a mere detail?

That sum is not a mere detail, of course, and the situation is set out as clearly as it can be, but if the hon. Gentleman wants some elucidation and will put down a Question, I will gladly answer it.

Would a cut in private capital wealth not be or more help to the country in its hour of need and would my right hon. Friend consider that?

I think that that is a different question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as against the projected savings of £300 million in the recent statement, the winter Supplementary Estimates of this year have already gone up by £320 million?

I am aware that certain winter Supplementary Estimates were laid for expenditure which has already taken place, but I am not aware that Members of the Opposition have urged me not to undertake the payments involved, of which the biggest item was for combating foot-and-mouth disease.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs have been created in Scotland in new Government offices or agencies which have been sited there since October, 1964.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on 19th December, 1967.—[Vol. 756, col. 354.]

Is the Financial Secretary aware that nearly 7,000 of the 7,500 jobs provided in this way in Scotland result from decisions taken by the Conservative Administration before 1964? Does he agree that this shows that the record of his Department has been somewhat meagre?

The decisions in many of these matters were taken by the Conservative Party, but they were confirmed and implemented by us. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that, in this matter of employment in Scotland, the provision of Government offices is only part of the story and that the Labour Government have given twice as much money towards encouraging employment in the last three years than did the Conservative Government in a similar period.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at least two Government agencies in the agricultural sphere, one being the Meat and Livestock Commission, are admirably suited to go to Scotland? Is he further aware that in a letter to the Scottish T.U.C. the other day the Prime Minister said that the Government would continue to look at the possibility of this happening? Is "a look" by the Prime Minister adequate in this matter?

We of course do our best to encourage the development of these offices in Scotland, but there are other factors which must be taken into account.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will complete consideration of locations for computer centres.

I cannot give a date at this stage.

Is there any reason why Scotland should not have a second computer centre? Will this be considered?

Certainly.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the evidence submitted to him by the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire in favour of a £1 million a week prize State lottery producing a net profit to the Exchequer of £200 million a year, he will take steps to introduce such a weekly lottery.

My hon. Friend's suggestion will receive the same consideration as do the many other suggestions for raising revenue which I receive.

This may be what I am afraid of. Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a lottery of this type, given maximum publicity—with £1 million in prizes being shown on television and tickets costing Is. each on sale in shops generally—could contribute materially to Exchequer revenue?

My hon. Friend should bear in mind that I have not yet had very much opportunity for considering suggestions for raising revenue, so we had better see how that works out. I will, of course, take all considerations into account, including the factors which he has quite fairly brought to the notice of the House. Hon. Members will be aware that there is a Private Member's Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) due to be discussed in the near future.

Would my right hon. Friend seriously consider giving his support to that Bill, to which I hope the House will give a Second Reading?

Certainly not.

I will certainly be interested to see what view the House takes on the Bill.

Will the Chancellor bear in mind the fact that there is a good deal of opinion in this House and elsewhere that gambling in Britain is already excessive and that for the State to add no the burden would be immoral and unacceptable to millions of men and women in this country? Will he study the Churches Commission on Gambling to ascertain the facts of the situation?

In. my previous job I had a good deal of contact with the Churches Commission on Gambling, and, on the whole, I prefer to have the Commission's advice direct rather than via the hon. Gentleman—however powerful, even if unauthorised, a spokesman he may be.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the fact that the richest 10 per cent, of the population own more than three-quarters of the total individual wealth, what legislative plans he has to provide for a fairer redistribution.

My hon. Friend will be aware that I cannot anticipate fiscal legislation.

In spite of that, would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in principle, restraint by wage earners on the one hand and gross inequality of wealth on the other are incompatible with each other?

I think that, even in principle, I should not anticipate fiscal legislation.

Will my right hon. Friend avoid the habit, to which some Chancellors are prone, of introducing new taxes without due consideration? While agreeing with the principle of a wealth tax, may I ask him to accept that he should set up a working party to conduct a full investigation into this type of tax with a view to introducing it in 1970?

I will take note of what my hon. Friend suggests.

Does not the Chancellor recognise that the greatest need now is to increase incentives to the acquisition of wealth rather than to add to the disincentives to its holding?

I will take note of all the advice I am given by all sides.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make arrangements to estimate the total amount of Income Tax exemption in 1967–68, in respect of fees paid for private education.

If my hon. Friend is referring to the exemption of the profits of schools which are recognised as charities, I am afraid that the Inland Revenue does not have the information which would be needed in order to make the estimate.

At a time when we have had to significantly reduce our educational commitments, would not my hon. Friend agree that the country can no longer afford what is a subsidy to private education on the present scale?

I am afraid that, without the figures, it is difficult to assess the gravity of the matter, as my hon. Friend would wish to have it assessed.

Would the Financial Secretary say how many millions of £s are saved to the State by parents who freely and willingly choose to bear their own children's educational costs? Would the Treasury care to pay tribute to those who are saving the nation a great deal of money in this way?

I am not able to document that debating point, either.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he will make concerning the needs of developing countries in the context of measures for improved international liquidity.

The new I.M.F. scheme for special drawing rights will, when activated, be of both direct and indirect benefit to the developing countries.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that at a time when Britain is giving a lead in this matter, many of us would welcome any initiative we might show to look at the real needs of the developing countries in this respect?

Yes, Sir, and I would like to see this scheme activated as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so. It would, as I say, help the developing countries both by increasing their liquidity and by increasing the liquidity of other countries, a matter of importance to them from the point of view of world trade and aid.

While recognising that any improvement in the world liquidity situation would be of enormous benefit to the under-developed countries, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is looking at the proposals which have been made for linking access to rights with assistance to under-developed countries, in particular the proposals which have been put forward by Mr. Maxwell Stamp?

I am aware of these proposals and I am aware of the general proposition which my hon. Friend puts forward. I think that such a link could be a useful device at some stage, but I believe that the first task is to get the special drawing rights established and accepted.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study he has made of the extent to which the introduction of Corporation Tax in 1965 has led to an increase in company profit retentions in 1966 and 1967; and what were the results of that study.

These matters are kept under continuous review. Special factors affected the periods for which figures are so far available and it is too early to draw any firm conclusions about the effect of Corporation Tax on company retentions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reviews under which this is continually kept is the Board of Trade regular survey sample of companies and that the latest survey suggests that in the 12 months ending 1st October, 1967, the level of company retentions dropped by £75 million compared with 1965? Is this the rational aim of Corporation Tax and recent increases in the tax?

No, Sir, but special factors have operated in the last two years or so. While we will certainly continue to watch the position carefully, I would expect a different position to develop in future.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to separate the duty on spirits from die regulator.

No, Sir.

Why is this not being done following the discussion on the last Finance Act? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that otherwise the Government may find that they are having automatically to raise the duty on Scotch whisky to an incrediable figure, thus damaging an important export-earning industry?

This proposal was debated and rejected on a Division during the Report stage of the last Finance Act. I am afraid that I cannot go beyond that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many non-industrial civil servants there were at the latest convenient date; how this compares with the number a year previously; and what functions now performed by the central Government he proposes to eliminate in order to secure a reduction in these figures.

In October, 1967, 469,670. The comparable figure for October, 1966, was 440,400. Future work will reflect the policy changes announced on 16th January.—[Vol. 756, c. 1591.]

Does the last Answer mean that the figure will increase or decrease? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the very heavy calls on manpower and finance which result from this steady increase in the non-industrial Civil Service? Cannot the Government get rid of some of its functions, perhaps starting with the Land Commission?

In fact, in accordance with decisions already taken by the House, we had anticipated a significant increase— of 11,000 above those figures—in the Civil Service concerned. We will try to hold that increase back to the present numbers, which will, in effect—in order to implement the policy decisions of the House—amount to a cut in the numbers employed.

Will my hon. Friend note that, when it suits their purpose, hon. Gentlemen opposite, acting as constituency Members exert all sorts of pressures for works and services to be carried out in the constituencies, and then, when acting as a body, they are opposed to an increase in the number of civil servants? Will he ignore this masochism and see that, if it means that this Civil Service has a contribution to make in the provision of civil services, its numbers will not in any way be cut down?

It is interesting to note that the percentage of the working population employed in the Civil Service compared with 15 years ago shows that, if anything, there has been a slight reduction in the proportions. I take fully into account the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to restore the cuts made in Government investment in nationalised industries.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on 17th January.—[Vol. 756, c. 649.]

What about the pre-election pledges that if private industry could not do the job the Government would step in and establish industries themselves? Where is the science-based industry we have heard so much about?

I think my hon. Friend is talking about two different things, public industry stepping into new fields and investment programmes of industries which are nationalised at present. Certain cuts were made there which it was thought reasonable and economical to make, but of course investment in nationalised industries is as important to the industrial infrastructure of the country as investment made in other industries.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a revised annual estimate of central and local government expenditure and the expected net capital borrowing requirements of the nationalised industries for the financial years 1968–69 to 1970–71.

Public expenditure estimates for 1968–69 and 1969–70 have been published in the OFFICIAL REPORT following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday, 16th January, and also in Command Paper No. 3515. Public expenditure estimates for 1970–71 are not available. The borrowing requirements of the nationalised industries in 1968–69, but not in the later years, will be published at the time of the Budget as usual.— [Vol. 756, cc. 1577–1620.]

The Chancellor will recollect that the White Paper gives the figure for the nationalised industries as an aggregate one. Since that must have been arrived at from the component totals of each nationalised industry, can he, for the convenience of the House, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the component figures?

Not in answer to a supplementary question, but if the Question is tabled I will answer it.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that this revision will involve no alteration in the 4 per cent, housing loans undertaken by the 1967 Act?

I do not think that that begins to arise on this Question.

The Chancellor is not listening. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) asked whether the Chancellor would circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Will he do so or will he not?

I am sorry. I understood the hon. Gentleman to ask whether I would state them in answer to a supplementary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry. If that is the case, I will certainly circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT any available figures which are of use to the House.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to restore the export rebate.

Our exports have been made more competitive by devaluation and under present circumstances the Government have no intention to restore this rebate.

Is it not about time that the Government realised that it is no use their sitting with their backsides in a trough full of cold water which is rapidly freezing, surrounded on all sides by guns, but that they ought to get out and heat that trough and get ahead with producing wealth and encouraging exports?

I found my hon. Friend's metaphor a little mixed, but I endeavoured to follow it is closely as I could. It certainly is our intention to get out and increase exports, but it has also to be borne in mind, as I have told the House on previous occasions, that there is a danger of escalating protectionism throughout the world and we have to be careful not to assist that process.

What representations did the Government receive from the Americans in regard to our export rebate, and what representations have the British Government made to the American Administration about the proposals announced by President Johnson recently?

I do not think it is primarily a matter of representations, but we must watch and see very carefully what the Americans do about the possible introduction of an export rebate.

Will my right hon. Friend take up strongly with the United States Government this action, which may have a very harmful effect on our exports to the United States when, as he mentioned, we voluntarily withdrew ours?

I am aware that the American action could have a very adverse effect and could lead to a very undesirable process. We must consider our own position in relation to what they may or may not do.

Can the Chancellor tell us, if this export rebate was so soon to be done for, what it was begun for?

It was begun in circumstances in which devaluation had not given our exports a competitive advantage, in order to give them a small competitive advantage. The advantage arising from devaluation, if fully exploited, should of course be far bigger than anything resulting from the export rebate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that the Inland Revenue does not cause close companies to declare higher dividends than are consistent with the Government's policy of dividend restraint.

No special steps are required.

Does not the Financial Secretary accept that there is confusion in different policies involved here? What steps will he take to see that they do not conflict with each other?

There is in fact no conflict between provisions relating to close companies and the Government request for dividend restraint by publicly quoted companies for reasons which have emerged in the creation of this set-up.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many qualified valuers are employed in the Government's service; whether he is satisfied that the number is adequate to deal properly with the valuations instituted by the Capital Gains Tax and the betterment levy; and if he will make a statement.

At 1st January, 1968, there were 2,154 qualified valuers serving in the Valuation Office. Despite the shortage of valuers and the pressure of work upon the office, I have no reason to think that the valuations to which the hon. Member refers are not being properly dealt with.

Does the hon. Gentleman deny that there is delay in valuations due to the shortage of valuers? What steps will he take to ensure that the Chancellor in his next Budget does not make any more legislation which needs more valuers?

The office is certainly working under pressure but getting on quite satisfactorily with its work. As to the future, in view of the national shortage of qualified valuers, the Inland Revenue is trying to train some younger people and has 335 cadet valuers in post at present.

Does my hon. Friend recall that I drew his attention recently to two cases of newly established firms in my constituency, in a development area, which are being seriously inconvenienced by delays in valuation?

I think that is a different point, but if my hon. Friend finds that the delay has not been cured I shall be happy to take the matter up.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the net increase in National Savings in 1967; and what were the comparable figures for 1966, 1964 and 1962, respectively.

£108 million, a decrease of £29·5 million, £357 million and £238 million respectively. The 1967 figure is partially estimated.

As the best way in which the average citizen can back Britain is through National Savings, what new initiative is the Financial Secretary taking to restore the 1964 figure?

These selected figures given in answer to a selective Question reflect among other things very heavy Defence Bond redemptions in 1967, which were very much higher than in the earlier years which appear more favourable. The hon. Member can rest assured that we have very much in mind the necessity to give maximum continuous encouragement to National Savings.

Will the Financial Secretary agree that, quite apart from particular years, more genuine new savings mean a less need for taxation, and therefore will he urge on the Chancellor speedy action and include within that action maximum encouragement to saving?

I would entirely agree with the first proposition. In so far as my right hon. Friend needs any encouragement on the second, he will certainly have it from me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount he now estimates will be raised in taxation in the year 1967–68.

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the revised estimates which will be published in the Financial Statement.

Would the Financial Secretary agree that the burden of taxation under this Government has become quite intolerable and is stifling initiative and enterprise? Will he ask his right hon. Friend seriously to refute that taxation must go up again in March?

The hon. Member's supplementary question, I fear, bears little relation to his main Question. I take it that he was not asking for a specific answer to his rhetoric.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to promote the free movement of capital and revise Corporation Tax, in order to facilitate the development of European-based companies able to compete on an international scale in advanced technologies.

None, Sir. But the subject of technological co-operation will play an important part in the consultations we are now to have with our colleagues in Europe.

None the less, would the Chancellor take this opportunity of affirming that it is a first priority of the Government, as indicated in the Letter of Intent, that as soon as the balance of payments shows a definite improvement policy will be taken to promote greater freedom of movement of capital?

This is a wider question than the one the hon. Member originally asked. I am most anxious to encourage technological co-operation. There is no evidence that this is being held back by lack of freedom of movement of capital at present. The position remains as stated in the Letter of Intent, although I am not quite sure that the hon. Member stated it precisely.

The question also refers to Corporation Tax. The Chancellor will note that our system differs radically from that around which the Europeans will harmonise. What are his proposals to revise our system of Corporation Tax to harmonise with theirs?

The hon. Member can hardly think that I am going to tell him that now.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the consultations he has had with representatives of the United States Government with a view to securing the demonetisation of gold.

I have had no such consultations.

Might not the step indicated in my Question well curb the monkey tricks of General de Gaulle? Is it not rather sad that my right hon. Friend is prepared to act as General de Gaulle's poodle and to kick in the teeth Commonwealth Prime Ministers from South-East Asia in pursuing his curious doctrine of wanting to get into Europe?

My hon. Friend, who has strong views on this and on many other matters, seems to be raising a large number of issues which do not arise directly from the question whether I should or should not consult the United States Government about the demonetisation of gold.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will publish a White Paper on the effects of devaluation and the connected measures upon Scotland.

No, Sir.

As the Secretary of State for Scotland has limited his statements to the fields within the responsibility of the Scottish Office, will the Government issue a comprehensive statement, including, for example, one concerning the investment grant postponement, since these grants form one of the main benefits of a development area?

Scotland, like other development areas, has been protected, in that there have been no cuts in development area expenditure. I do not think that it would be particularly useful to publish a White Paper dealing with the effects of devaluation upon a particular part of the United Kingdom.

Will not my right hon. Friend consider publishing a White Paper showing the effects of these cuts on the Scottish Departments? Is he aware that we are all very anxious to know how the cuts will affect health services, housing, and education? Surely there is nothing inconsistent with Government policy in our being told the facts about Scotland.

I am very anxious that the House should know the facts about Scotland and about other matters, but I think that a detailed breakdown of the sort my hon. Friend refers to is within the purview of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland rather than of myself.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this position? Is he not aware that for some months the Government have been making it clear that there are to be cuts in Scotland and that local authorities and other bodies in Scotland are waiting to have details of these cuts? We know that the road, education, and housing programmes are to be slashed. There will also be cuts in local authority investment programmes. What are the details of these cuts? Why will not the Government come clean and tell us what the cuts are to be?

The details of these cuts, as with the details of cuts for England and Wales, have been outlined. If any further Questions arise, they should be tabled to the Ministers concerned.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the shipbuilder's relief is to be withdrawn, as well as the export rebate, to which shipbuilders were entitled as an option.

No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's statement on this in the House on 22nd November, 1967.—[Vol. 754, c. 1434.]

Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer taken into account the fact that in fixed price contracts already negotiated this relief has been taken into account and that he is placing a new burden on the industry?

I am not placing a new burden on the industry because, as my right hon. Friend made clear, the industry is maintaining the relief which it had, which was an alternative to the export rebate, which rebate is being abolished, but it is not being abolished for the shipbuilding industry.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his present estimate of the income from the tax on gaming machines.

The Budget estimates included a little under £3 million on this account.

I accept that it is a useful and honourable way of raising revenue, but does not my hon. Friend think that to charge a tax of £75 on a bona fide sporting club which makes a net profit of just over £125 from a machine is a little unfair? Will he ask the Chancellor to look at this matter when he is preparing his Budget?

I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend to look at the matter, but I know that my right hon. Friend would not wish at this point to have any comment on this subject from me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct the Inland Revenue Department that when Income Tax allowances for dependants are discontinued those concerned should be given details of assistance available from the Ministry of Social Security.

There would be great difficulty in putting upon the Inland Revenue responsibility for advising about the whole possible range of social security benefits.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that this is a humane service which might be provided? Is he aware that people are often denied supplementary benefits which are available to them, even after weeks, indeed years, of argument with the Inland Revenue authorities about tax allowances, simply because no one tells them? Will he look at the matter again?

I am aware of the particular case which brought this matter to my hon. Friend's attention. I am glad that he chooses to present the Inland Revenue in a humane way. The Inland Revenue is a very heavily burdened Department and there are limits to the burdens which I can or should place upon them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reduction he in tends to make in the number of civil servants as a result of proposed cuts in Government expenditure following devaluation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is now taking to curb the growth in numbers of civil servants.

It is the intention, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on 16th January, to plan the staffing of Departments in such a way that over the year 1968–69 there will be no further net increase in the number of civil servants as a whole.—[Vol. 756, c. 1591.]

As the Chancellor himself presides over one of the Departments which has grown most rapidly in the past three years, will he give the House a firm assurance that the staff of the Inland Revenue will not increase this year?

I am certainly applying this stringency to Departments, including those within my immediate purview, but I could not give a particular assurance at this stage about any particular Department.

What proportion of the increase of 57,000 civil servants since 1964 is permanent and what proportion is temporary? How many of the 200,000 extra local government employees are permanent and how many are temporary?

I could not say that without notice.

Will not the introduction of prescription charges involve additional civil servants? Does he not want to abandon this absurd project?

No. I think that my hon. Friend underlines the general plea that policy changes, many of them advocated from both sides of the House——

Not this one, though.

Not exactly all of them—are much easier to advocate than it is to realise what it means in terms of civil servants.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman can do better than that? Why cannot he make a start with the occupants of No. 10? Is it not clear that they are all redundant?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much investment in the public sector rose in the third quarter of this year, before devaluation.

Public sector fixed investment, revalued at 1958 prices and seasonally adjusted, increased by 1½ per cent, between the second and third quarters of 1967.

Did it not increase by no less than 7 per cent, in the previous quarter, at a time when investment in manufacturing industry was declining? Is not this most undesirable?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman thinks is undesirable, he fact that there was a greater increase in the second quarter or a very much smaller increase in the third quarter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will renew Central Bank swap arrangements with the Bank of France.

These arrangements continue in being.

May we take it from that most welcome news that the French Government can be relied on to report on the progress of the British attempt to return to solvency and keep the Government up to the mark, when the Chancellor appears to lack the determination to do so, judging by last week's events?

The hon. Gentleman constructs extremely elaborate supplementary questions. My answer to the Question relates to the Bank of France. I answered the Question which was asked.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, before considering rates of tax generally in preparing the next Budget, he will ascertain how much solicitors for Government Departments are trying to collect in over due Income Tax, Surtax, pay-as-you-earn, Corporation Tax and Selective Employment Tax.

It would not be possible to ascertain this amount without a disproportionate amount of work.

Does the Financial Secretary agree that there are probably tens of millions of pounds, if not hundreds of millions, overdue in the hands of Government solicitors, and that if he collected all that money there need not be any increase in taxation on 19th March?

The hon. Gentleman is the first hon. Member—and I hear from many of them—to suggest that the Inland Revenue is too lenient in enforcing the collection of taxation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the borrowing requirement of the nationalised steel industry has been taken into account in arriving at the forecast of the net borrowing requirement for 1968 contained in his predecessor's Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund.

The needs of the British Steel Corporation, as of other nationalised industries, were borne in mind in arriving at the figure of £1,000 million.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. Friends are very keen to talk about sacrifices by others. Is not it time the Government started to sacrifice some of their own claptrap about nationalisation in order to enable us to satisfy our creditors in the terms they are laying down for us?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about claptrap, he should ask a supplementary question relating to the Question he put down and not something he prepared. The Question relates to the borrowing requirement of a nationalised industry, and no doubt he would wish on reflection, as would the whole House, the proper capital requirements of that industry to be met.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a most surprising question from a Scottish Tory, because this morning in the Scottish Grand Committee Scottish Tories urged far greater expenditure on national sewage?

I am not in the least surprised to be informed that, even in the Scottish Grand Committee, there is a contradiction between what hon. Members opposite say in particular and what they say in general.

The right hon. Gentleman has not read the Question. It is not whether the industry's borrowing requirement has been borne in mind but to what extent it has been taken into account. Will he answer that question?

Yes, Sir. But I think that what the hon. Gentleman probably does not appreciate is that the borrowing requirement is not directly related to any particular item of expenditure, whether current or capital, but is the difference between the total of Government expenditure and the amount brought in in revenue. It is therefore not possible to answer the question in as precise a manner as the hon. Gentleman would like. But certainly it was taken fully into account.

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

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to their official holdings in securities of the Suez Finance Company.

Her Majesty's Government are not seeking to dispose of the shares at present.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who now controls the company, where most of the assets are held, in Egypt or outside, and how the security of our assets is likely to be affected by recent events in the Middle East, particularly our proposal to withdraw from that area?

The company is under French control and my understanding is that most of the assets are held outside the Middle East. The company is to a very large extent a general investment company.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to checking imports, he will require importers to pay cash at the time of the placing of the order, in accordance with the system, details of which have been sent to him, adopted a few years ago in Italy with satisfactory results for the Italian balance of payments.

No, Sir. I am not convinced that such a scheme could usefully be introduced in this country.

The scheme as put in the Question is perhaps a little exaggerated. But would the right hon. Gentleman take it from me, for I was in Italy in April, 1964, when the Italian Government required importers to pay cash within 30 days of the goods arriving, that it had a very salutary effect on the Italian balance of payments at that time? Would he consider something along those lines?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, as he puts it, the facts in the Question were a little exaggerated. They were somewhat inaccurate, but I did not point that out until he raised it. But he subsequently raised the question again accurately, and it is true that in 1964–65 die Italian Government made a remarkable swing-round from a position of deficit to a very large surplus, but it is difficult to argue that that particular proposal was unique amongst those which effected that. There would be certain practical difficulties about applying it here in present circumstances.

Will my right hon. Friend not be so ready to dismiss the suggestion out of hand? Is he aware that a great many goods are being imported into this country that we do not need and cannot afford and are bad for the country's economic health? While none of us wish to be identified as protectionists in outlook, because we are an exporting nation, there is a point where reason flies out of the window and common prudence and ability exercised by many of our international competitors is not matched by equal vigilance at our own ports.

I was at fault if I gave the impression that I dismissed this or any similar suggestion out of hand. All these suggestions must be considered very seriously, but I am not convinced that this would be a useful measure at present. Apart from anything else, its immediate impact would be to worsen our short-term balance of payments.