asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his recent negotiations with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, in particular with regard to the continuing balance of payments surplus run by the Federal Republic.

I have nothing to add to my statement on 22nd November about the discussions at the Group of Ten meeting in Bonn.

Did the Prime Minister really tell the German Ambassador that he would have to take action in regard to defence if the mark was not up-valued? Will the Chancellor consider letting the exchange rate float after this traumatic experience in the last year or two?

In reply to the second part of that supplementary question, I made it absolutely clear in my statement on Friday afternoon and again yesterday that we are determined to maintain the parity and will take, and have taken, all necessary measures to that end.

In reply to the first part of the question, communications between Governments are always confidential. As to matters of the conference, Professor Schiller, as Chairman, at the beginning of the conference asked that in view of the seriousness of the issues involved a high degree of confidentiality should be accorded the proceedings. Therefore, I assume that nothing that has emerged could come from the German Government, and I propose to observe that confidentiality.

Does the Chancellor appreciate that many of us on these benches feel that the attitude of the West German Government at present is one of arrogance and selfishness? Is not my right hon. Friend aware that some of us want the Government to aproach Mr. Schweitzer at the I.M.F. with a view to bringing pressure to bear on the West German Government because they are maintaining a very high surplus on balance of payments, and this is a crime against world trade? Secondly—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must learn to put brief questions.

I shall complete my question as rapidly as possible, Sir. Should not the Government now take steps to reduce the cost of the British Army of the Rhine by withdrawing, say, a token force of 10,000?

I indicated yesterday that I thought that there are obligations upon surplus as well as upon deficit countries. As 1 said on Friday in reply to my hon. Friend, we have considerable problems in the international monetary system at the moment. These can be solved only by international co-operation, and I do not think that it helps to achieve this by using language of that sort against anybody.

Does not the Chancellor agree that, at a time when we are trying to achieve a surplus, it cannot help to use language such as that which the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) has used?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to simplify the calculation and collection of Income Tax by withdrawing the personal, married, child, dependent relatives', housekeeper's, age and blind persons' allowances, or any of them, and making restitution to taxpayers by the payment of positive allowances in lieu.

I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 7th March, 1968. —[Vol. 760, c. 134.]

Does the Chiet Secretary appreciate the enormous benefits he would confer on virtually every employer, in savings both of time and expense, if he were to abolish the present system of Pay-As-You-Earn? Is there a single valid reason for clinging to the existing system?

I appreciate that the present system of Pay-As-You-Earn, which has been examined many times, imposes certain time-consuming responsibilities on employers; but it is the best method of tax collection that we have so far achieved.

Does not the Chief Secretary appreciate that the public are crying out for a simplification of the present taxation system which they do not understand and which often their advisers do not understand?

I am crying out for a simplification of the tax system. As soon as I try to simplify it in any way, the public insists on having tailor-made tax for each individual member of the public.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to integrate the system for collection of graduated National Insurance contributions with the existing systems for collection of taxes graduated to income.

The collection of graduated National Insurance contributions has been linked with the collection of Income Tax under P.A.Y.E. since the graduated scheme was introduced.

Is there any reason for levying two income taxes simultaneously? Why not integrate Income Tax completely into the National Insurance system?

What the hon. Gentleman apparently desires by implication in his Question is in fact being done.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of total Government help to industry in Scotland in 1963, 1965 and 1967, respectively.

The identifiable financial assistance, excluding agriculture and fishing, was, in the respective financial years,£7 million,£8 million and£79 million.

Whatever the Opposition's thoughts might be about cutting down help to factories in development areas, is it not a fact that figures of this kind provide the explanation for the dramatically improved youth employment situation in Scotland, details of which we were given yesterday?

It is a dramatic improvement. I can help my hon. Friend further by adding that, in comparison with Great Britain as a whole, about 15 per cent.—that is, as compared with 10 per cent. on a population basis—of the identifiable assistance went to Scotland.

Does the reply take into account the investment and depreciation allowances which formed one of the methods being used in 1963?

No, it does not take depreciation allowances into account. It takes into account investment grants.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the approximate cost of collecting£1 million in Income Tax,£1 million in tax from Surtax,£1 million in Capital Gains Tax,£1 million in Corporation Tax, and£1 million in Selective Employment Tax, respectively; and if he will make a statement on the number of civil servants involved in collecting various forms of taxation.

It is not practicable to provide separate figures for each Inland Revenue tax. In 1966–67 collection of the four Inland Revenue taxes specified cost approximately£13,800 per million pounds, or 1.38 per cent. The administrative costs of Selective Employment Tax on both collection and repayment are expected this year to amount to£3,852 per million pounds, or 0.385 per cent. Approximately 84,000 civil servants are employed for the purpose of administering taxes.

Does my hon. Friend detect a certain inconsistency among those who both call for a reduction in the Civil Service and want to abolish the Selective Employment Tax?

Yes, but not an inconsistency in solitude.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind nevertheless that approximately the same number of people are employed in the Federal Government of the United States in collecting tax from a population four times the size of ours, and is there not a lesson here for possible reductions in staff and increased use of mechanical and electronic means for assessing and collecting taxes?

That sort of supplementary question provides the maximum satisfaction to the questioner and the minimum possibility of providing information to the answerer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated percentage of the gross domestic product represented by personal savings at the latest available date for the curret year; and how this compares with the estimated percentage for the corresponding period in the previous year.

On a seasonally adjusted basis, it is estimated that personal saving represented 6.1 per cent. of gross domestic product at current factor cost in the first half of 1968. This compares with 6.2 per cent. in the same period of 1967

Does not the decline, modest though it be, indicate that the public prudently felt that the money in their pocket would be diminished as a consequence of devaluation, and does the Financial Secretary imagine that as a result of the Government's policies announced over the past few days personal savings as a percentage of total personal income will rise?

The inferences drawn on the basis of six months' experience in two years seem to me somewhat exaggerated.

Can my hon. Friend hold out any hope of finding a new incentive to saving which does not involve a simple transfer from one kind of saving to another?

We are earnestly engaged on that task.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated share of personal savings represented by National Savings during the current year; and how this compares with the share for the corresponding period during the previous year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the aggregation of National Savings in the 10 months to the end of October, 1968; how this compares with the 10 months ended 31st October, 1967; what proportion of all personal savings is now represented by National Savings; and what steps he is taking to increase all forms of personal savings.

Total National Savings increased by£74.3 million in the nine months to the end of September, 1968, the latest convenient date, compared with an increase of£131.3 million in the corresponding period of 1967. The latest estimates suggest that National Savings amounted to 6 per cent. of personal savings in the first half of 1968. In the corresponding period of 1967 they amounted to 8 per cent. of personal saving. Assessing ways of stimulating personal savings is a continuous process; and, as the Chancellor told the House on 2nd July, the possibilities of a new development in contractual savings are being re-examined. I cannot, however, anticipate the outcome of this review.

The kernel of the hon. Gentleman's answer is that National Savings as a percentage of total personal savings declined between the two periods referred to from 8 to 6 per cent. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the public are so reluctant to lend their money to the Government?

The ratio of National Savings to total saving, which is the important figure, varies from year to year. In 1967, it varied because of the changes made in the Budget which allowed great increases in Savings Certificates sales and we have not yet had time to see corresponding increases in 1968.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that what the general public are apprehensive of is the present highly inflationary position resulting from the Chancellor's package last Friday? Will he assure the House, on behalf of the Chancellor, that we shall not have to wait till the Budget of April, 1969, for him to match his words by deeds and take the important anti-inflationary action of stimulating personal savings?

In so far as the hon. Gentleman relates the decline in National Savings to my right hon. Friend's statement last Friday, I would suppose that there was considerable lack of Budget security.

If savings, both national and private, are desirable, as they are, and should be encouraged, can my hon. Friend tell me at what point a man changes from being an honest small saver into being a bloated capitalist tycoon?

I think that that depends upon the subjective, aesthetic and political apparatus of the spectator.

As there is about£8,000 million in the National Savings Movement which is repayable on demand, how can the Chancellor's wage freeze curtail spending in the shops when all this flood of money could be brought in instantly as purchasing power?

That is a factor which all Chancellors have to take into consideration, but the sacred obligation to make repayments of National Savings must remain unimpaired.

Having regard to the unsatisfactory reply to Question No. 41, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will add the self-adjustable bed for invalids made by H. Bickerton Limited to the list of those items that are exempt from Purchase Tax, since this Company sells this bed only to invalids, will change its sales literature to state this, and is prepared to restrict deliveries to cases approved by a doctor or a local health authority.

No, Sir. I can only repeat what my hon. and learned Friend said on 15th October, namely that it would not be practicable to make an exemption for invalid beds, still less for an individual type of bed made by one particular company.—[Vol. 770, c. 191.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that this is the second occasion on which I have raised this matter, and that on the first occasion it was suggested that the firm sold beds to the fit as well as to the disabled? Now that the firm has said that it sells beds only to the disabled and will sell beds only to the disabled, why cannot the Government be a little more humane and sensible, since these beds are for near-paralysed people who would otherwise have to go into hospital?

I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's approach, and particularly so as this is known as the Bickerton-Marples self-adjusting bed—

It has nothing to do with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples).

—but it is the usual problem of the purpose to which the bed is put. I take it that the hon. Gentleman refers to people of ill health. I can imagine beds being supplied for that purpose and also being used by people of good health who would be only too happy, for a variety of reasons, to use beds which are both comfortable and self-adjusting.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the cost of raising the starting level of Surtax on earned incomes to£7,000 per annum and to£10,000 per annum.

About£25 million and£45 million, respectively, if the result was achieved by increasing the special earnings allowance for Surtax.

Does the Financial Secretary recall the speech which he made two weekends ago about the need for incentives in our tax system? Would he not agree that those British executives who receive earned incomes of between£5,000 and£10,000 per annum are the most highly taxed in the world?

I shall reflect upon what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the views of hon. Members on this side who would strongly oppose any suggestion that there should be so-called incentives in that direction? If these people are the most highly taxed in the world, as they are making the highest incomes, is there anything wrong in that?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will reflect upon what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now reconsider his refusal to introduce import quotas or other methods of controlling imports in the interests of the national economy.

I would refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 22nd November.

May I take this opportunity of thanking my right hon. Friend for adopting some of the policies that some of us have been urging on him for a long time, particularly with regard to import control? Will he reconsider the selectivity that he has imposed, on certain foodstuffs in particular, in order to assist his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is very anxious to save even more money now spent on importing foreign foodstuffs?

No, Sir. I think that our decision that the scheme should apply to a large proportion, but by no means the whole, of our imports was the right basis on which to proceed. It would be a great mistake at this stage to vary the scheme.

Does not the Chancellor realise that the pattern of trade is so intricate that by this bludgeon of a measure he is likely to harm almost as many exporters indirectly as importers directly? Has he taken any steps yet to find out how many companies are bankrupt already since his announcement?

No, Sir. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who is always rather a bludgeon with words, should refer in this way to suggestions put forward by his right hon. Friends the Members for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod).

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the computer for the Inland Revenue to serve the eastern area, including Essex and other neighbouring counties, is being situated in Tyneside and the North-East.

The Tyneside area was selected because it was an area which both met the operational requirements of the Inland Revenue and accorded with the Government's regional development policy. The decision was taken after the most careful review of the alternatives both inside and outside the eastern region.

As the eastern region is a comparatively low wage area and has some places of unemployment higher than the north-east, would the hon. Gentleman look at this again?

I cannot undertake to do that. The decision was taken only after the most exhaustive and lengthy examination.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision was welcomed in the North-East, where the male unemployment rate is 6.4 per cent., and that it is hoped that the Government will press ahead even more vigorously with the policy of devolution of Government offices?

The Government are doing their best to meet the kind of thing my hon. Friend has in mind. I am grateful for his support.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax changes he is proposing to make in relation to widows.

I cannot add to the Answer given to my hon. Friend on 26th June, 1968.

Whilst this is hardly the opportune time to ask the Chancellor for concessions, would not my hon. Friend agree that over the years widows have had a rough deal from successive Governments? Can he hold out any hope for the longer term?

All times are appropriate for asking for concessions. No time is appropriate for predicting them.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the simple expedient of raising the starting level of Income Tax for all widows?

Such suggestions are always carefully considered, but one cannot anticipate the Chancellor's Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of the United Kingdom's overseas debt incurred since October 1964; and when it must be repaid.

The sum of£1,923 million was borrowed by the Government, of which£585 million has been repaid, and the present value of the amount outstanding is£1,452 million. I will circulate details, including repayment dates, in the Official Report. These SUMS exclude Central Bank transactions.

But if one adds on to it the Central Bank transactions, does not that mean that from now until about 1974 Britain must earn a surplus on her balance of payments of about£500 million a year before any direct benefit accrues to the British people? Is that the extent to which the country has been mortgaged?

No, Sir. I have always indicated that we need very substantial surpluses in order to meet our debt repayment. It is not possible to calculate exactly how much they will be, because there are other factors in the equation—the movement of funds into or out of the country, as the case may be. I have never concealed that there are very substantial surpluses to be earned. I do not think that we have to look beyond this for benefit. I believe that there is real benefit to be gained from reducing our debt and achieving a surplus position at the present time.

Is not it absurd to be talking about repayment of the whole of the debts in so short a period, when once we are in surplus it will be a comparatively simple matter to fund them over a very much longer period?

My hon. Friend is not right when he suggests that we do not have a considerable and formidable problem ahead of us. He is right when he says that it is not something which can be calculated on a month to month or year to year basis.

Will the Chancellor now say what is the size of the debt incurred under the Basle arrangement?

No, Sir. I do not propose to give the fluctuations from time to time in this. In reply to a question from the right hon. Member for Enfield West (Mr. lain Macleod) who asked whether the amount of drawing that we could make, and which is available to us as a result of the rundown of the sterling balances since the end of March, was of the order of 600 million dollars, I indicated that it was. I indicate now that there has been since then some rebuilding of sterling balances, which has reduced the 600 million dollars. But I do not think it appropriate, and I do not propose now or in the future, to give the exact figures from month to month.

Is it not the case that in the period from the date in the Question there has also been a very heavy export of capital from this country? What fresh measures is my right hon. Friend taking to control this export of capital? In any case, does not it greatly alter the general figure when this export has been taking place?

It does somewhat alter the general figure, though as a result of taxation measures of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary our capital balance moved into near balance for some period.I have no further measures to propose.

Will the Chancellor confirm that the information he will place in the Library will include the firm dates

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the seizure by customs officers of Rhodesian stamps.

Goods imported from Southern Rhodesia in contravention of the prohibition on their importation are liable to seizure under Section 44 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, and Rhodesian stamps have been seized under that provision.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the seizure of a single Rhodesian stamp from an amateur collector makes not only his Department but the whole country look ridiculous? What will he do to restore the property of those who have exchanged or bought stamps through a third country?

It is never ridiculous to enforce the declared and explicit intention of Parliament, and that is all that is being dole in this case.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that hon. Members on this by which we are committed to pay certain of these debts?

Yes, Sir. I can confirm that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present estimated cost to Great Britain of maintaining sanctions against Rhodesia.

The cost to the Exchequer, including contingency support for Zambia, was£34.8 million between i.d.i. and 30th September, 1968.

Could the hon. Gentleman give the House a more genuine figure, including the loss of trade and invisibles, such as banking and insurance, the purchase of dollar tobacco and so on?

I was asked a specific and factual Question, to which I have given the most accurate answer available. I am not in a position to rove into a more speculative field.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House regard the price as cheap? Will he and the Government do all they can to see that sanctions are stepped up to the highest degree possible for which they can get international agreement?

We enforce the sanctions which Parliament thinks fit to enforce. and do so in accordance with Parliament's intention.

In the absence of an agreement, which we on this side of the House at least devoutly hope the Government will reach, for how many years are the Government prepared to go on with sanctions, which have signally failed in their object?

That is far wide of the original Question.

Will my hon. Friend give an estimate of the damage to the British economy which would follow if those countries supporting the United Nations Resolution on sanctions were to break off trading relations with this country?

My hon. Friend imposes on me at short notice a difficult task which I cannot undertake.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will undertake a study of the tax systems of other advanced industrial countries for the purpose of ascertaining which of them have different provisions for investment income and other income.

We are already well informed on this subject.

Will the Government publish the result of their inquiries in the Official Report? Does not he think that the increasing discrimination that Britain has imposed on investment income may be one of the factors explaining the decline in savings ratio?

I do not think that there is any call for publication.

When undertaking a study of the tax systems of other countries, will my right hon. Friend endorse President de Gaulle's view that speculation against one's currency is unpatriotic and should be prosecuted? When my right hon. Friend is considering the tax system in the U.S.S.R., will he find out what happens to speculators there?

I hope my hon. Friend will relieve me of responsibility for what happens in the Soviet Union. I gave a fairly full answer last night on the subject of speculation and made it clear that illegal speculation is subject to prosecution.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the reason for the increase in the money supply at an annual rate of 9.6 per cent. during the second period of 1968.

A great many factors can be attributed as leading to a change in money supply. In any one quarter some of these factors may reflect purely seasonal or temporary influences, as indeed was the case in the second quarter. In the September quarter, after seasonal adjustment, the increase was no more than ½per cent. Taking the second and third quarters of 1968 together, the money supply was rising at an annual rate of about 6 per cent., after allowing for seasonal adjustment.

Would not the Chancellor agree that the injection of large sums of public money by buying up gilt-edge stocks very often occurs just at the wrong time, as last week, and that the continually increasing money supply is counter-cyclical? Will he look into the serious increases in demand which have resulted from this sort of policy and which were responsible for last week's measures?

I will consider carefully what the hon. Gentleman has to say on this point, which has some force. The employment of money supply over the past two quarters has been no more than in line with the increase in gross national product.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, for information, what definition he is taking of money supply for the purpose of this Answer? Is it cash in circulation plus bank deposits?

Definitions are always dangerous things to give without the exact words in front of one, but I think that it is cash and notes plus banking deposits, either in the United Kingdom of foreign banks, held by United Kingdom residents.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will invite a firm of management consultants to examine the structure and methods of Her Majesty's Treasury.

No, Sir. The Treasury's organisation has been considered, and changed, several times in the last few years; for instance, as a result of the Fulton Committee's recommendations on the setting up of the Civil Service Department. I do not think that another examination now would be helpful.

As the Bank of England has appointed a firm of management consultants to examine one part of the Government's financial machine, would it not be appropriate to invite a firm of management consultants to examine the methods and organisation of the Treasury as well?

I have just explained that it has been fully examined by the Fulton Committee very recently. The Bank of England did not have the advantage of that examination.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that public expenditure will be contained within the limits set in the White Paper of January 1968, Command Paper No. 3515, for 1968–69 and 1969–70; and if he will make a statement.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply of 15th October I gave to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).—[Vol. 770, c. 185–7.]

Since the situation is much worse than it was in January, should not these targets now be reviewed by the Departmental Ministers concerned, regrettable though this necessity may be, if the Government's latest stringent measures are really to be effective and as this is a time of crisis and not of successful economic expansion, owing to the incompetence of the Government?

I explained only last night how the Government are sticking to their target of public expenditure for the forthcoming year, which represents an increase of 1 per cent. I also explained the difficulties I have when hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Gentleman himself, press for increases in individual items of public expenditure, and I look forward to his support the next time one of those difficulties comes along.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that demands from hon. Members opposite, which are pretty constant, for reductions in public expenditure are alternated with demands for increases in certain services in their constituencies, such as hospitals, roads and social services? Would not he agree that this incredible attitude of theirs only confirms Disraeli's dictum that the Conservative Party is an organised hypocrisy?

It was Churchill's.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, last night, he was concerned with the figures in real terms? What are the figures in money terms, and, in particular, has the public expenditure percentage of gross national product gone up?

I have not the figure in money terms, but I gave the figure last night in real terms because that is what the House is interested in. The increase is 1 per cent. extra over this year, but the increase in gross national product is, as I have said, much greater than that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce a value-added tax and abolish Purchase Tax in his next Budget.

I cannot comment in advance on the contents of my right hon. Friend's next Budget.

Would not an undertaking by the right hon. Gentleman today do something to counteract the deplorable effect on our relations with our European allies caused by the patronising arrogance with which the Chancellor is reported to have behaved in Bonn?

I am unaware of those reports. I can only say that my right hon. Friend is incapable of behaving with arrogance.

As the recent report did not in any substantial way contradict the exhaustive findings of the Richardson Committee, would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would perhaps be better to try to convince Europe that it would be better for them to revert to purchase tax?

That would be an easier task if the countries my hon. Friend has in mind had ever adopted the purchase tax system. It is necessary for all of us, in order to understand the different views taken by different countries, to realise what previous methods of taxation they respectively used.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to give, for the current financial year, the percentage of the gross national product taken by central and local government expenditure, including National and Health Insurance contributions and interest on loans to local authorities and public corporations.

No. Sir. An estimate of the gross national product for the twelve months ending March, 1969, will not be published until July next year.

Is it not a fact that Government claims on the gross national product are increasing much faster than the latest predictions for the product itself?

No. I have just answered that point. The estimate of increase on any public expenditure next year is 1 per cent. and the estimate for increase in gross national product is much greater than that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sales are expected of the reprint announced by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on 23rd July, 1968, of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960; and how far these are estimated to meet the cost of printing.

It is expected that the 1,000 copies which have been reprinted will be sold or issued officially over the next few years and that the cost of reprinting will be recovered in full.

That is a feeble Answer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the Act, except for part of one paragraph of one Schedule, has been superseded by the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, and that there would seem no point in spending money on reprinting it?

According to my advice, there remains a demand sufficiently active to absorb this modest edition in a reasonable period and to recoup our costs.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation so that marriage and dependants' allowances are only allowable in respect of persons living in the United Kingdom.

I shall consider the hon. Member's suggestion, but I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the loss by fraudulent claims of between£5 million and£7 million a year is intolerable and that quick action is demanded by the public?

My right hon. Friend will certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you give some protection to hon. Members? Are not these early days for the House to be fobbed off with conventional statements about anticipation of the Budget?

I have no power to make Ministers answer in the way the hon. Gentleman would wish them to answer.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do we understand that this is the January Budget that we are talking about?

That is not a point of order.

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

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will specify the amounts of debt Great Britain is firmly

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions he has given in the current year to officials in his Department to delegate greater financial authority over detailed spending decisions to the main spending Departments.

The levels of delegated expenditure are revised from time to time as circumstances warrant.

In view of the Fulton Committee recommendations and the setting up of the new Civil Service Department, is there not a need for a complete new look at this whole system of delegated expenditure? Does it make sense to urge new delegated management responsibility in government without major delegation of financial responsibility to Departments? Is not this in need of reform now?

With permission I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us now what the total figure is and what percentage is due to be paid in the next five or ten years?

The total figure is£1,536 million.

The hon. Gentleman should not assume that there is any fixed view about this, or that the amount of delegation is equal for all Departments, or for all elements within a given Department. Each has to be looked at on its merits and, as the hon. Gentleman, who takes a great interest in these matters, knows, one has to have regard both to the responsibility of the Treasury and the responsibility of the Department and its feeling that it is doing a responsible job by itself.

Has my right hon. Friend noted the recent Report of the Estimates Committee on the very detailed candle ends control exercised by the Treasury over the Ministry of Overseas Development? Will he look carefully at that?

I have noted the Report and I always pay great attention to the Reports of the Estimates Committee and the Reports of all Committees of the House, and I am familiar with the complaint about candle ends. I am also aware that if a candle end were only 1 per cent. of the length of a candle of£15,000 million public expenditure, it would be a considerable sum.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions have been given to Departments to submit their estimates in future on the basis of programmes and functions rather than by standard administrative category.

I am considering whether the presentation to Parliament of information on public expenditure could be improved.

In view of the trends in public spending, is it not a matter of prime urgency that Parliament should know much more about the way in which the Government are spending public money? Does the Chief Secretary know that the West German Parliament will be presented next year with estimates broken down both traditionally and on a functional cost basis? Will he look at that system, because there may be something in it?

The answer to the first question is an unqualified "Yes, Sir". The answer to the second is that I hope to go much further than the Government which he has mentioned in enabling Parliament to take a real interest and a real share in determining the shape of public expenditure.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of the customs service at airports, shipping ports and railway termini in the United Kingdom for the latest year in which figures are available; and how much was collected in duty during the same period by customs officers.

In round figures,£18 million and£2¼thousand million in the year ended 31st March. If the hon. Member's interest is confined to staff engaged on the examination of passengers and their baggage, I would refer him to the Written Answer given to his hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) on 14th October.

I did not understand the figures. I ask for only two but I seemed to get three. Will the hon. Gentleman explain which figure applies to what?

I gave the hon. Gentleman two figures,£18 million and£2,250 million, the£18 million being the cost of collection and the£2,250 million being the amount collected. I would have thought that without detailed explanation that might have been obvious.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has now made of the balance of payments for 1968 and 1969.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government still estimates that the United Kingdom will achieve a£500 million annual rate of surplus on its balance of payments some time during 1969; and if he will indicate the basis for this estimate.

The House will know from my statement of Friday and my speech yesterday of the Government's determination to achieve a decisive and early improvement in the balance of payments. I do not intend to publish exact estimates at present.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he adheres to the earlier forecast of£500 million surplus during the course of 1969? Is he aware that when this figures is given by the Treasury to international bodies, it is frankly treated with disbelief?

Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), who, I know, always has my interests at heart, warned me against publishing too many forecasts. I have published more than has ever been done before, and I do not in the least regret doing it, but I do not think that it is sensible constantly to publish forecasts. But our target remains exactly as previously.

What is "sizeable" and what is "early"?

"Sizeable" is large and "early" is at the soonest possible moment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies in incentives he is now undertaking.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies in personal incentives and taxation he is undertaking.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on 15th October, 1968, I am carefully considering the main studies which have been carried out in this field in recent years.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the dragging of feet by the Treasury is in marked contrast with what is going on in the Department of Economic Affairs, which is carrying out a survey into the R.E.P. and as that Department represents£100 million and the taxes of my right hon. Friend's Department represent£10,000 million a year, surely investigation here should have greater priority?

I am not aware of any dragging of any feet in the Treasury.

asked the Prime Minister if he will transfer responsibility for industrial and occupational health from the Department of Employment and Productivity to the Department of Social Services.

I am not at present convinced that this would be the right decision.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that today we are losing more than 20 million working days a year through industrial diseases and accidents which are largely preventable and that this is a serious burden on our economy? Would it not be easier to solve this problem if there were one Department responsible for all health affairs?

I agree with my hon. Friend's statement of the facts. These arguments are very finely balanced. He will recognise that the change for which he is asking appeals to many in industry, including the T.U.C., but that it is important that factory doctors should also be closely identified with the work of the Factory Inspectorate in all aspects of industrial welfare, industrial health and industrial safety.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the shortage of manpower and woman-power in the Health Service generally, we cannot afford not to make the most economic use of existing manpower, that divisions of this kind result in duplication, and that bringing them all under the same umbrella would be an immense benefit to all?

It is precisely because of the shortage of medical manpower that the idea of developing what might become a separate occupation in the Health Service is impracticable at this time. From his professional and other contacts, the hon. Gentleman will know of the new proposals for the "A" Doctor system which I think will be of great value to occupational health in industry.

asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to coordinate Government action to avert attempts to disrupt the economy during the forthcoming winter.

My right hon. Friends already work closely together on these matters.

I welcome the recent and slight downward trend in the number of wholly unemployed. However, can the Prime Minister confirm that it is his belief that the Chancellor's recent measures will not in fact increase unemployment? If they do, will he not be courting a winter of discontent in some quarters?

I have nothing to add to the very full statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the debate yesterday when he dealt with the reversal of the unemployment trend which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and also with the very marked rise over the last few months, especially the last month, of the number of unfilled vacancies, vacant jobs. I thought that my right hon. Friend put the whole matter completely right in its perspective yesterday.

Will the Prime Minister suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he restrain the Leader of the Opposition from undermining confidence by seeking to exploit a grave international crisis for Tory Party ends?

No, Sir. I would not suggest asking the hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the Leader of the Opposition. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition yesterday greatly increased confidence on this side of the House as a result of the extremely well chosen words he saw fit to adopt. However, from a national point of view, he would do well to study the words of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and his very restrained and patriotic remarks on radio on Sunday.

rose—[Interruption].