asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent international discussions he has had concerning the maintenance of the present price of gold; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the statement which I made in the House on 18th March after the Washington Conference.—[Vol. 761, c. 40–9.]

While warmly congratulating my right hon. Friend on his appearance at Stockholm, may I ask him to say what discussions took place there concerning the two-tier system and what hopes he has of introducing some interim measure during the working of that system?

We did not discuss the two-tier system as such. We did discuss the S.D.R. scheme and we made substantial progress on that. I think that the two-tier system could last for a considerable time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect of the prices and incomes policy upon the rate of inflation.

I would refer my hon. Friend to my Budget Statement.—[Vol. 761, c. 251–302.]

Is it not a fact that an essential part of the prices and incomes policy lies in its reduction of the level of inflation? If this figure is not known, how can it be assumed that industrial unrest will be paid for by the advantages that control of income would be likely to bring about?

My hon. Friend is mistaken if he assumes that it is only if something can be exactly quantified that it is of importance. The importance of the prices and incomes policy relates not only to its effect on the level of inflation, its effect on demand, but also, and perhaps even more substantially, to its effect on costs.

Is not the objective of the right hon. Gentleman's policy in raising prices to cut consumption?

No, Sir. It is inevitable in the post-devaluation situation and as a result of my decision in the Budget to use largely indirect taxation that there should be some increase in prices. However, it is not my policy that increases in prices which are not necessary and justifiable should take place.

Are we to understand that the Budget judgment was made without any quantified assessment of the post-devaluation period already having been made?

No, Sir.

What is my right hon. Friend's estimate of the rate at which wages will be kept down by having prices and incomes legislation?

I am not able to give an exactly quantified estimate of that sort, but I think that it can make a substantial contribution both in dealing with the demand problem and, as I said, still more importantly, in dealing with the cost problem.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect of increased taxation in his Budget proposals on the cost of living index during the year 1968; and what effect he calculates this will have on the prices and incomes policy.

About 1½ per cent. This was taken into account in the formulation of the prices and incomes policy.

Having regard to the fact that the norm for increase in incomes is said by the Chancellor to be 3½ per cent. and it is now obvious that in 1968 thy; increasing cost of living will be two or three times that amount, are not these two considerations mutually incompatible? How can the incomes policy proceed en a basis of such shifting sands?

First, the 3½ per cent. is not a norm. Secondly, I do not accept the extravagant estimates of the hon. Gentleman about the rise in the cost of living.

If on my right hon. Friend's own calculations there is to be a gap of at lea it 3 per cent. between prices and real earnings and this will mean a real reduction in the earnings of workers, would he not accept the T.U.C. figure of expansion to 6 per cent. both in growth of productivity and also in incomes?

The latter part of the question, although important, is slightly distinct from the first part and also from the Question to which it was a supplementary question. I want to see the highest rate of growth we can get compatible with it being an export-led growth and not a consumer-led growth. It is not possible in those circumstances to go ahead quite as fast as my hon. Friend would like.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next proposes to consult with the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund about the United Kingdom's economy following on devaluation.

As stated in the Letter of Intent, there will be two further consultations with the I.M.F. during the period of the stand-by arrangement. These will be in July and November, 1968. In addition, the regular annual consultations will take place in May.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm, before he goes to the next meeting, that it is the Government's intention to abide by paragraph 12 of the Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund, under which there is no entitlement to a norm or standard increase in pay?

I can confirm that it is the Government's intention to stand by all paragraphs of the Letter of Intent.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a further statement on the creation of an Inland Revenue computer centre in the North-East.

The matter is still under consideration.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we have been waiting a very long time for this decision? May we now assume that, when it is eventually made, it will be made in favour of the North-East?

My right hon. Friend must bear in mind that this is a complex operation. The centres in question cannot come into operation until the mid-'seventies, and he would be unwise to make any assumptions about the final decisions concerning the location of these centres.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it would be outrageous, bearing in mind the present prospects of the North-East, if the first P.A.Y.E. centre was not centred on the North-East?

There are other areas of of the United Kingdom—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—the representatives of which are as capable as my hon. Friend of expressing articulate outrage if they are not favoured heirs in this operation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, as a step to cut public and private expenditure, he will postpone the date on which decimalisation comes into operation until 1975; and what estimates he had made of the savings which would result in 1968, 1969, and 1970 from such a postponement.

No, Sir. Decimalisation is well advanced and because of the real economic benefits which will accrue it is in the best interests of the country as a whole to proceed as planned. The information sought on estimated savings from postponement is not available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost and effort.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who support decimalisation believe that when Government economies are being made this should be the first thing to go, because it is unproductive and the savings involved would dwarf some of those already made in social welfare?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having in the first part of his question expressed support for the proposal. I share with him anxiety about unnecessary expenditure. I even share that anxiety about expenditure which might have been involved in reducing the pensionable age for men down to 60.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in regard to foot-and-mouth compensation of approximately £30 million, the £20 per head of cattle bounty, and the £10 per acre ploughing-up grant for foot-and-mouth victims, he will confirm that these emoluments are completely free of assessment to Income Tax, Surtax, Corporation Tax, and capital gains duty.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now state the Government's policy on taxation and compensation to farmers relating to the recent foot-and-mouth disease outbreak.

Government policy on this matter was the subject of a statement by me in rely to the Adjournment debate on 5th March.—[Vol. 760, c. 397–408.] That statement now requires to be amplified to cover further developments. I propose, therefore, to circulate a comprehensive statement in HANSARD.

Will the Minister stop dodging? Is he not aware that this is the fourth time this question has been asked? What we want, and what I ask him to do, is to confirm that compensation for foot-and-mouth disease is not subject to Income Tax, to Surtax, to Corporation Tax or to Capital Gains Tax. Will he give us that assurance in unequivocal terms?

I have given the hon. Member the assurance in unequivocal terms that his expanded desires cannot be fully gratified. I think, however, that when he reads the statement in HANSARD he will feel that I have gone a long way to assist the people for whom he is quite understandably concerned.

Does the Financial Secretary realise that his Answer is not good enough? He is circulating an Answer which we shall not be able to see and cannot question the Treasury about for many weeks. Will he specifically answer the point at the end of the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)? Are these emoluments to be free or not of Income Tax, Surtax, Corporation Tax or Capital Gains Tax.

I thought the Answer I gave was quite clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Answer was in general terms that I could not accept the demand that has been made. The statement that I am circulating is a fairly lengthy one which deals with complex points of Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax. I urge that the House would be wiser if it looks at this statement.

Is the answer "No"?

The answer is, "No, there is no exemption for Capital Gains Tax, Surtax and Income Tax." I thought I made that quite plain. I am sorry if I overestimated hon. Members' intelligence, but I thought I made it absolutely plain. I must apologise for an overestimate which I shall not readily make again. I suggest that hon. Members should read the statement which I propose to circulate. It deals fully and sympathetically with the request made.

If the lasses are compensated for in such a way as to make the recipient liable to Surtax and Capital Gains Tax, is there any reason why they should be exempted?

I urge my hon. Friend also to await the very careful statement which I am circulating in HANSARD.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend the Post-War Credit Regulations to enable consular officials to verify facts about British nationals living in foreign countries claiming repayment of their credits.

No, Sir. I do not think it would be practicable for consular officials to undertake this task.

Would my hon. Friend reconsider that Answer because, in view, I should have thought, of the relatively small number of people involved, it would be possible to ask our consular officials to check on this and so to help people who in some cases are in dire straits?

Yes, I am quite prepared to look at this again. Although I had tentatively come to the conclusion I have expressed to the House, I will certainly have another look at the matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his estimates of the expected receipts from motor vehicles in licence duty and fuel tax at present rates for 1969 and 1970.

Estimates are not available for calendar years but preliminary estimated receipts for 1969–70 and 1970–71 are £460 million and £490 million, respectively, in respect of vehicle excise duty and £1,025 million and £1,075 million, respectively, in respect of fuel tax. These figures may be subject to later revision.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that the recent report published by the Minister of Transport on track costs shows that, with the new rates of fuel duty and licence duty, road vehicles will be paying about double the amount expended on roads in construction, maintenance and servicing?

That question is an assumption which no one, I should have thought, on either side of the House accepts—namely, that a particular source of revenue is hypothecated to a particular type of expenditure.

Will the right hon. Gentleman read the White Paper, where he will see the whole argument was that there should be a relationship between the tax on vehicles and the amount spent? Why did the Chancellor decide to increase motor vehicle licences by £33 million instead of adopting the proposal of the Minister of Transport for wear and tear and abnormal loads tax to raise the amount of £33 million?

I should be only too glad to read the White Paper as the hon. Member has invited me to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to make in the system of annual publication of the Vote on Account.

I am considering this matter, but am not ready to make any statement at present.

Can the Chief Secretary explain the system under which the Vote on Account one year is regarded by the Government as of great significance and importance and is dismissed as of little significance in the following year?

No, Sir. I cannot explain those two statements, because they were not made. What the Government have said, through me, is that the Vote on Account can be very misleading if it is regarded as an indication of public expenditure. The last thing I want to do is to mislead hon. Members.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Mr. Arnold, of 10 Ladysmith Avenue, Brightlingsea has been refused blind allowance on reaching the age of 70 years.

Mr. Arnold has not been refused the blind person's allowance; his liability has been computed on the basis of the marginal age exemption relief which is more favourable to him than a computation on the basis of the normal tax allowances due to him.

Is not the hon. Gentleman using words to deceive? Is it not a fact that the blind allowance is taken away on reaching the age of 70 in cases like this?

That is not so, and the blind person's allowance has not been refused to Mr. Arnold.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of Inland Revenue pamphlet, "Looking Ahead to East Kilbride, Volume 2"; and how many copies of this pamphlet were printed.

Sixteen thousand five hundred copies at a cost of £560.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to prevent the cost of advertisements for helping Britain being charged as business expenses for taxation purposes, in order to obtain a larger revenue for the Exchequer from persons advertising in this way.

No, Sir. The normal rule is that such expenses are not allowable in computing the profits of a trade for taxation purposes unless they have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of that particular trade. That rule will be applied in this and all other cases.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply will give considerable satisfaction, because it is the general view of the House that business expenses should be looked at very closely and allowed only where they can be clearly justified in relation to the business concerned?

I am glad that my hon. Friend is so gratified by an announcement of almost Gladstonian antiquity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase to the proportion of population the 2 per cent. in value which is the present Welsh proportion of all the goods and services purchased or hired by the Government in Wales.

I could not accept that the proportion of Government purchases from a particular area should be related to the proportion of the population resident there. Firms in the Welsh development area will gain a competitive advantage from the general measures of assistance now being given by the Government to those areas.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on a basis of population about 5 to 6 per cent. of the Government's expenditure on goods and services of this kind would be in Wales, and that the undue concentration of expenditure on the more affluent parts of England goes far to explain their prosperity and the high rate of unemployment and emigration in Wales?

With respect, the hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. There is no relationship between those two items. There is certainly a relationship in terms of public investment, for example, where the amount invested in new construction in Wales was 6 per cent.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average annual increase in personal disposable incomes at constant prices for the years 1952–64, inclusive and 1965–67, inclusive; and what estimate he has made of the number of years over which the 1965–67 rate of increase would have to be maintained to equal the total increase over the period 1952–64.

The average annual increase in personal disposable income at constant prices from 1952–64 was 3¾ per cent. and from 1965–67 was just over 1½ per cent. The answer to the second part of the question is "None".

Is the reduction in the standard of living which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised this country for the current year to continue for the whole lifetime of the present Government? How much worse off shall we be at the end of their period in office than we were when they started?

The hon. Gentleman will be all right.

That is an entirely hypothetical question. If I were the hon. Gentleman, I should not worry unduly.

Why have not the Government published a forecast of personal disposable income in the Financial Statement forecasts?

If the hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that further information should be published, we shall give consideration to that in a future year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps he proposes to take to control the growth of public expenditure.

I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement of 16th January and to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statements of 17th January and 19th March.—[Vol. 756, c. 1577–620; 1787–805. Vol. 761, c. 259.]

In view of the strong resentment caused by the continuing rise in Government expenditure when personal consumption is having to be cut back, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that the Chancellor will not allow any Supplementary Estimates to be introduced next year, and that there will be no repetition of the gross exceeding of Estimates which occurred this year?

I should not dream of giving that assurance. If one wants to avoid having any Supplementary Estimates coming forward to the House, one has to make such lax Estimates in the first place as to cause waste of public expenditure.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to improve international liquidity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects that the Special Drawing Rights scheme of the International Monetary Fund will be activated; and what steps are being proposed by the Government to have this scheme put into operation as a matter of urgency.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Ministerial meeting of the Group of Ten on 29th March.

As the House will be aware, Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the Group of Ten, with one country abstaining, reached agreement at Stockholm last weekend on the amendments to the I.M.F.'s Articles needed to establish a scheme for Special Drawing Rights. Certain changes in the Fund's rules and practices were also agreed. This is a most satisfactory outcome. We have taken a major step forward in strengthening the international monetary system. I expect to bring a Bill before the House later this Session to enable the United Kingdom to take part in the S.D.R. scheme.

Is the Chancellor aware that the Special Drawing Rights scheme which he regards as a satisfactory outcome is a flight from monetary reality? Is not it time that Her Majesty's Government took an initiative to promote a system of floating exchange rates and a free market in gold?

I am aware that that is the hon. Gentleman's view, but it is one which is not shared by the majority of people either in this country or outside. I am not quite sure exactly what he means by monetary reality. What I mean by monetary reality is doing our best to establish a world monetary system which enables world trade to expand on an orderly basis.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that most people regard the scheme as an extremely important advance in the general question of international liquidity? Will he pay tribute to the valuable work of his predecessor in this regard, and can he say what further initiatives the Government propose to improve international liquidity?

In my view this is a most valuable advance which is the culmination of four years' very hard work by a great number of people, including my predecessor, who took a leading part at Rio and the two London conferences last summer. This is a big step forward, but the view I took at Stockholm and take now is that it does not of itself solve all our problems. We must constantly look for other means of establishing further world liquidity.

What prospect does the right hon. Gentleman see of the five member of the European Economic Community who signed the communiqué agreeing to the activation of the S.D.R. scheme while the Americans are still in substantial deficit? Does he agree that there is a likelihood that the split-level system will not last until the S.D.R.s can be activated, and will he not close his mind to the possibility of a change in the gold price if the split-level system should be seen to have collapsed during this year?

The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is highly hypothetical. As I said earlier, I believe that the split-level price can last for a substantial period, particularly at present when the split is very small between the two prices which prevail. On the question of the activation of the S.D.R. scheme while the American deficit persists, my view is that it was the general desire of the conference to see signs of a reduction in the American deficit. That is a reasonable desire. If those signs were seen I think that there would be no disposition to wait until the deficit had been eliminated or anything approaching that.

Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries to discover whether the speech by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) last night, in which he equated S.D.R.s and fools' money, is the official policy of the Opposition?

Among my many responsibilities I do not have responsibility either for the official policy of the Opposition or the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Perhaps he had better sort that out with the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod).

Will the Chancellor define what he meant in his last supplementary answer but one by the words "substantial period"? Will he say why we should not hurry along to what he plainly regards as the inevitable conclusion and revalue gold and establish floating exchange rates so that we have a new basis on which to go forward?

I do not regard that conclusion as either inevitable or desirable.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many hon. Members who will congratulate him and the others present at the Stockholm Conference on achieving something which is a step away from the nonsense of relying on a particular metal? What does he estimate will be the amount that will be utilised under the S.D.R. scheme in the next five years, up to a maximum of 10,000 million dollars?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. It is difficult, however, to make an estimate of what he asks for. I hope that the scheme, once fully launched, can build up with considerable momentum, but it would be wrong to attempt to give a quantitative estimate in a matter which necessarily concerns not merely nine of the ten members present at Stockholm who agreed to the scheme but the other 97 members of the I.M.F. who were not present.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage increase at constant prices between 1964 and 1967 in the gross domestic product, consumers' expenditure, public authorities' current expenditure on goods and services, private investment, and public authorities' investment including the nationalised industries, respectively.

The percentage increases at constant prices between 1964 and 1967 are as follows:

Do not these figures show a most depressing contrast with the growth rate figures of 1958 to 1964? Do they not also illustrate that public expenditure has got completely out of hand at the expense of private investment, on which our future depends?

They show no such thing. When private investment is falling, it is essential for the Government—and this policy has been accepted by all parties—to fill the gap and increase public expenditure.

Does that mean that, as private investment increases, Government investment will fall?

That does not necessarily follow.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he has given the real reason why there is roaring inflation?

That supplementary question has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of collecting Capital Gains Tax in the first full year of its operation.

I regret that this information is not available.

Why is the hon. Gentleman so loth to give the House this important information? Is it not a fact that the cost of the collection of the tax is out of all proportion to the revenue received?

The hon. Gentleman is on safe ground in drawing conclusions based on no facts which can be furnished to the House. The fact is that all tax collection and administration is integrated and that it is not possible, without incurring inordinate expense, to segregate the cost of collecting one particular tax from the general tax system.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage of public investment to development areas in 1966–67; what was the allocation to the Northern Region in capital terms; and what estimate he has made of the requirement to 1970–71.

Figures for public investment in development areas are not available. The latest figures for public investment in new construction by planning region were given in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) on 22nd February, 1968. Estimates for future years are under consideration.—[Vol. 759, c. 170.]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding me of that reply on 22nd February, but will he bear in mind strongly that the figures then quoted in relation to investment in new construction in the Northern Region meant that we were considerably at the lower end of that league table? If we are to have a resurgence of regional economy in the early 1970s, it is essential that the Northern Region should get a greater share of public investment.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but he must equally realise that one just cannot allocate public expenditure between different parts of the country in such a narrow way.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has admitted that the Northern Region is receiving a smaller proportion of the public investment programme than was promised? What are the Government going to do about it?

I am not aware of that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount he expects to increase the money supply during the financial year 1968–69.

The growth of the money supply is not determined by Government action alone; but I expect the increase to be smaller in 1968–69 than in 1967–68.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a singularly unhelpful and uncommunicative Answer? Is he further aware that growth in the money supply has far more effect upon the movement of prices and incomes than any prices and incomes legislation can possibly contrive to achieve? Are we to assume that his unwillingness to answer is because the Government are so determined to proceed with legislation that they attach far more importance to it than it really deserves?

My unwillingness to answer derives from my unwillingness to take upon myself the mantle of charlatan prophet, since so many of the factors governing money supply are wholly outside the Government's control. Money supply increases and diminishes in relation to trade surplus, to the total amount of non-bank buying of Government bonds, and other things of that sort. Where the Government can exercise control then our policy is clear, but there are a great many factors in this matter which are quite outside our control and which would make it unwise and irresponsible to attempt a prediction.

In view of that astonishing confession of failure how on earth can the Government plan?

It is the kind of confession of failure which, if King Canute had made it, he would have achieved a somewhat better historical reputation than he did.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the official gold and foreign exchange holdings of the United Kingdom at the latest convenient date; and from information available to him from international sources, what is his estimate of the official gold and foreign exchange holdings of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and the United States of America.

With permission, I will circulate this information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Could my right hon. Friend append to that the similar holding of a year ago?

My reply is already in the course of being circulated. If my hon. Friend had wished for this information as well, it would have been possibly a little more for the convenience of the House and for the Treasury at any rate if he had put it in his Question.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this information will show for the first time that our holdings of foreign currencies exceed our holdings of gold? At a time when the price of gold is so liable to change, is this not the height of folly by the Government?

I do not think that the currency proportion is higher than in the past, mainly because drawings from the I.M.F and central bank systems are payable and repayable in foreign currency. The proportion is not significantly higher than in the case of at least one and possibly two other countries in the table.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will re-examine the impact of Selective Employment Tax on voluntary non-profit-making bodies which cannot secure recognition as charities.

No, Sir. To give relief to bodies within this group would create insuperable difficulties of definition.

This tax was a savage blow at many voluntary bodies and the increase will cause additional difficulties. Could not my right hon. Friend consider devising a system under which certification of exemption might be granted by appropriate Government Departments to those bodies which cannot satisfy the esoteric and queer criteria laid down by the Charity Commissioners?

Such a form of certification is given by the Charity Commissioners. If they are unable to certify that a voluntary body is a charity, there must be very good reason for it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now undertake to provide to the House, and publish, the full details of the economic forecast made by the Treasury for a calendar year in advance.

Part III of the 1968–69 Financial Statement sets out in considerable detail the Government's assessment of the economic outlook to mid–1969.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having complied with part of my Question since I put it down. May I ask whether Table 13 in Part III, which he refers to and which is dealt with on a six-monthly basis, can be published in order that the six months may be brought up to date? Will he consider whether some other convenient reviews on six-monthly bases might also be published so that we might be able to realise the vast amount of Government run-away expenditure that is going on?

I thought until the hon. Gentleman got to the last part of his supplementary question that he was seriously asking for information. I see that I was misled. I am perfectly willing to consider any further useful publication for the future but I remind the House, as I have done before, that, in publishing these forecasts, I have done something which no other Chancellor has done before. It is reasonable to see how we go for a year on the basis of these figures and then consider whether or not we can amplify them somewhat.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fall in the real value of average earnings he estimates will occur in 1968–69, after taking into account recent official estimates of future increases in prices and output.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the assessment of the economic outlook to mid–1969 in Part III of the Financial Statement for 1968–69.

Would it not be far better if the fall which these assessments show was a fall in public consumption in the coming year, rather than private consumption? Would the Chancellor be prepared to bring forward to the House specific cost reductions in annual targets for the main spending Departments so that we may discuss them and get a real pressure for economy going in public consumption?

I do not necessarily accept as axiomatic the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It depends upon what the money is spent on. As I indicated in my reply to the Budget debate, I thought that the hon. Gentleman, in that debate, made some interesting suggestions, which I will study.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue a direction to all Government Departments, and nationalised industries, to investigate the present status and promotion prospects of men employed by them, especially of qualified engineers, over the age of 45 years.

No, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the trend, particularly in private industry, to advertise for men to fill top management posts—men with good qualifications, a lifetime of experience in the industry, all achieved by the age of 30? Does he not think that we ought to look at this with regard to nationalised industries especially, to make sure that we use the experience and qualifications of older men to the best advantage?

I do not know of any good basis that justifies the investigation which my hon. Friend requires.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the circumstances in which foreign currency has been made available for the purchase by the Sunday Express of memoirs written by Kim Philby.

I do not know from whom these memoirs were purchased. But payments to non-residents for publishing rights in the United Kingdom of newspaper articles are covered by a general exchange control permission.

Has my hon. Friend not studied the interesting article in the Sunday Telegraph, describing how these writings were hawked around Fleet Street and the difficulties which the proprietors of the Sunday Telegraph had in deciding where the money would go? Is my hon. Friend aware that it would give great satisfaction to hon. Members on both sides of the House if he would undertake to have another look to see whether the money has not reached Philby by some circuitous route?

As I have told the House, these payments are covered by the general exchange control permission in relation to payment to non-residents for publishing articles. I will gladly look at any abuse which my hon. Friend may think is occurring in the regulations, but I am not aware of any at present.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the memoirs of Mrs. Wilson, the wife of the notorious train robber—[Interruption.]—are being published in a Sunday newspaper? Since Mrs. Wilson is resident in Canada, will he make sure that an infringement of the exchange regulations does not take place in this case?

The hon. Gentleman has not given me any grounds for supposing that any such infringement has taken place.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his original Answer does not appear to be satisfactory? Is it not quite improper that a man who has been declared to be a spy, or any of his associates, should be able to profit as a result of the publication of articles in a British newspaper? May we have an assurance that he will not be allowed to make a profit?

It is not for me, in operating exchange control, to apply a moral censorship of any kind. If there is anything improper in these publications, that is a matter for the newspapers concerned and, perhaps, for the Press Council to comment upon. It is certainly not for exchange control.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to ensure that sums deposited in Great Britain to the credit of Kim Philby will be frozen; and that such sums are not made available to persons nominated by him.

So far as I know, Philby has only one bank account in the United Kingdom. In view of the circumstances in which he left the country, arrangements have been made to ensure that no transactions may pass over this account without specific reference to the Bank of England.

Would my hon. Friend have a look elsewhere, to see that there is no other loophole through which money could escape?

We are always vigilant to ensure that the exchange control regulations are effectively enforced. If my hon. Friend has any ground for supposing that we have overlooked a loophole in respect of Mr. Philby, or any other person, I should be happy to consider his complaint.

Why have so many successive British Governments always handled Philby with kid gloves? Is it not quite monstrous that a traitor should be allowed to make money out of his treachery?

The Question, so far as I can see, does not relate to the handling of Mr. Philby with kid gloves, but to the proper enforcement of the exchange controls. I can assure my hon. Friend that the exchange control regulations affecting Mr. Philby are fully enforced.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has abandoned the practice of holding the central reserves of the sterling area in gold; and when he expects to return to the former practice.

A substantial proportion of the reserves is still held in gold, but this naturally varies with circumstances. I would not accept that there is any overriding need to hold a particular percentage of gold.

Prior to this Government coming into office, was it not the practice to hold around 90 per cent. of the reserves in gold? Since this Government came into office, has this not gradually dropped below 50 per cent? Have there been any obligations placed on the Government by our foreign creditors not to transfer our reserves of gold?

No. As the hon. Gentleman, possibly taking a wise precaution, in view of the time, asked the supplementary to this Question on an earlier Question, when I gave the answer and the explanation, it is not necessary for me to repeat it now.