asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation that will allow artists the same tax arrangements as writers.

I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

While I am grateful, in a sense, for that Answer, may I ask my hon. Friend to agree that since writers, playwrights and composers are allowed to spread their tax arrangements over three years' work, it is wrong and an anomaly that artists are not allowed to do the same?

That is the very point we had noted.

Would not the Minister agree that a whole range of anomalies exist in this sphere? Will he at least look into the matter, because his hon. Friend is right about this?

I cannot add to what I have already said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now float the £.

No, Sir.

Do not we seem to be in a period when exchange rates are constantly coming under pressure? Rather than trying to adjust these by taking it out on the British people by savage taxation and deflation, would it not be better to let currencies find their own levels?

Apart from the fact that it would be contrary to our obligations under the I.M.F. articles of agreement, I do not think that it would have the beneficial consequences which the hon. Gentleman suggests.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the light of the Reddaway Report, he will introduce legislation to remove the fiscal discouragement to direct investment overseas.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the conclusions of the Reddaway Report on the medium-term beneficial effects of overseas investment on the United Kingdom balance of payments, whether he will review the restrictions placed upon such investment in 1965.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to implement the recommendations of the Reddaway Report, notably concerning overseas investments.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Reddaway and his colleagues. Their Report is a valuable contribution to the analysis of the return on alternative uses of resources and deserves careful study.

But it does not call for any modification of the Government's policies in this field. The authors accept that direct controls of overseas investment may be necessary at times of balance of payments pressure, and their conclusions contain nothing to justify more favourable tax treatment of direct investment abroad.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that he has come to the wrong conclusion? Is he aware that the Reddaway Report and the Economic Research Council document, just published, make it abundantly clear that this Government have been living on the "tick" earned by foreign investment overseas? Will he now take immediate steps, in view of this wrong diagnosis and fiscal discouragements on overseas investments, to remove these fiscal discouragements?

There is nothing in what the hon. Gentleman has said which would cause me to alter my view, nor are there any fiscal discouragements. The fiscal system is neutral for overseas investment.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Reddaway Committee found two things: first, that overseas investment pays off in 11 years, and then constitutes a net inflow into our invisible earnings, and secondly that home capital is not hit by investment overseas? In view of these two conclusions, will he not relax tax restrictions upon overseas investments?

May I repeat, there are no tax restrictions. The tax system is designed to be completely neutral. There were certain tax incentives, advantages, which have been removed.

Is it not a fact, leaving aside the fiscal disincentives to overseas investment, that the policy of the present Government, manifest now for four years, and evidently as it will be projected in future, will mean the total abandonment of British overseas investment, if continued?

No. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong on both points. The first point I have dealt with twice, and I will not insult the House by making it a third time. As to his second point, the present arrangements under exchange control and under the voluntary programme are designed to give preferential treatment to the most promising projects. That is the policy, that will continue to be the policy.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that investment in British industry is much more beneficial, for the long-term economic growth of this country, than investment abroad?

I have given the figures on many occasions.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that having heard his answers, the House will come to the conclusion that it will now have to wait until a Tory Government does justice to this question of overseas investment? Does he recognise that part of that programme of reform would involve the reform of the whole structure of Corporation Tax?

This House is a very patient place, but not as patient as all that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to increase private savings; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on contractual savings by individual workers, and on methods to be employed generally to increase the attractiveness of personal savings.

I am considering a number of possibilities for increasing savings, including a contractual savings scheme, but I am not yet ready to make a statement.

Is the Chancellor aware that some of us, indeed his own Financial Secretary, for years have been pressing for a new initiative in savings? If and when he brings in his contractual scheme, will he provide that there can be investment in equities, and if necessary building societies, and not just National Savings?

I shall certainly consider and be anxious to protect the position of building societies. Also I will consider the position of equities. I am also anxious to protect the position of the National Savings movement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the relative unattractiveness of the present arrangements for National Savings could not have been more evident than in last year's results, when there was an increase of only £70 million in National Savings compared with a £330 million increase in unit trusts?

The hon. Gentleman is making a point diametrically opposite to that of his hon. Friend. In other words, he is asking me to favour National Savings as against equity investment.

No. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to make them more attractive.

The hon. Gentleman's choice of words is always interesting, but I do not think that what he has said in any way detracts from the point I was making.

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether discussions are taking place between himself and the Chairman of the National Savings movement? Can he say whether the reports that have appeared in the Press about the progress of those meetings are reasonably accurate?

I would not like to say that I have seen all the reports which appear in the Press, let alone give an indication as to their accuracy or otherwise.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions the valuation of the present Basingstoke district valuer has been the subject of appeals heard by the Lands Tribunal in respect of valuations at Basingstoke; and in how many of these cases the award of the Tribunal has exceeded the valuation of the district valuer.

Four, as opposed to over 780 settled by agreement. In all four cases the Lands Tribunal award exceeded the district valuer's assessment, but in three of them the awards were nearer to his figure than to the amounts claimed by the vendors.

Is the Minister aware that many more people would have appealed to the Lands Tribunal if they were not frightened of the costs involved?

These cases are often difficult and the considerations of appeal are often ones which have to weigh these conflicting balances against each other.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what sum of money the Lands Tribunal found that his Department's local district valuer had under-valued compensation due on a compulsory purchase valuation at Basing-stoke, following the most recent appeal in this matter.

By £183,000, part of the difference arising from a question of law rather than of valuation.

Does the Minister admit that there is a substantial difference, quite apart from a matter of law? Would he not agree that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs? What does he propose to do about it?

The answer to this Question has to be read with the answer given to the last Question, which showed that in three out of four cases, the district valuer's valuation was much closer. I am sure that the district valuer has done his best to arrive at a fair valuation in each case. I am sorry that this has led to difficulties, or rather resentment, in certain cases.

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

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate available of the percentage of the population which owns 75 per cent. of Great Britain's personal wealth; what estimate he has made of the number of people who have private wealth amounting to over £2 million, over £200,000 and over £20,000, respectively; if he will estimate the yield from wealth taxes payable by such persons; and what plans he has for the introduction of wealth taxation.

It is estimated that in 1967 about 10½ per cent. of the population aged 15 and over owned 75 per cent. of the wealth owned by individuals, and that in that year there were about 14,000 people with wealth amounting to over £200,000 and 596,000 with over £20,000.

It is estimated that a 1 per cent. tax on all wealth owned by individuals in excess of £200,000 would yield about £40 million, and on wealth in excess of £20,000 would yield about £240 million. No estimate can be made for individuals with over £2 million. At this time of year my hon. Friend will not expect me to make any statement about the last part of his Question.

Would not my hon. and learned Friend accept that any society where one has this maldistribution of wealth is not only unjust but is basically inefficient, irrespective of the control of wealth? Will he not agree that the urgent introduction of a wealth tax would make it far easier for the industrial workers to bear the ramifications of the prices and incomes policy?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that there is a maldistribution of wealth in the country. As to the second part of his question, he is asking me to comment on what may or may not be considered for a Budget.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that his Government have a record of unhappy and malicious hostility towards private capital, and that the best he could do to offer at least some atonement would be to make an outright rejection of the suggestion of his hon. Friend?

I am not commenting one way or the other on the last part of my hon. Friend's Question. As to the first point of the hon. Member's supplementary question, my heart bleeds for those whose share values have suffered so very considerably.

In view of the figures my hon. and learned Friend has given, is he able to say how long it will be before we reach the objective of the Labour Party—an egalitarian society?

I can tell my right hon. Friend that over the last few years there has been a process whereby the distribution of wealth has become somewhat less concentrated.

In calculating the potential yield from such a tax, has the hon. and learned Gentleman taken into account the fall in revenues which would have been received from other sources? Before introducing any new taxes will he please bear in mind the urgent need for simplification of those that we already have?

All I was concerned to answer in the Question was the actual yield of a 1 per cent. wealth tax at different figures. As for tax changes, at this time of the year one cannot give details, or even answers, to such questions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the value in real terms at the present time of £100 saved in 1916, in 1938, in 1950 and in 1960, respectively; and if he will introduce a cost-of-living bond whose value and interest return will be related to real money values through the retail price index.

Without taking account of any capital gains or losses or interest the respective values of £100 saved would be about £25, £27, £56 and £77. The answer to the second part of the question is, "No, Sir".

Quite apart from the question of the need for wealth taxation, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is also a short-term need to help the small saver, that the small saver is discouraged from saving by the strong fall in the value of money over the last 50 years, and that one of the best ways of helping small savers would be to introduce a cost-of-living bond with a provision for a limited holding, which would avoid some of the problems of transfer?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. I refer him to the speech which my right hon. Friend made at Budget time, which dealt with this very question.

Do not the figures quoted by the junior Minister on the Treasury Bench in answer to this Question demonstrate that savings over the years continuously lose their value? Is not this a major contributory reason to the poor performance of National Savings last year?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman is trying to demonstrate. The totals in National Savings at the end of last year amounted to £8,534 million.

Does the Chief Secretary believe that the imposition of a wealth tax would increase or decrease total savings?

The hon. Gentleman is a little behind the times. That was the last Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken since the monthly meeting of the Bank for International Settlements in December to obtain international agreement to a new system for obtaining orderly movements in exchange rates; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the international monetary situation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in discussions on the international monetary situation.

As I said to the House on 25th November, I think it is right that we should think carefully and afresh about the present international monetary system. This process is bound to take some time and I do not think that an international conference would be helpful at this stage. Meanwhile we must work with the present system, improving it as we can, for example by bringing the scheme for special drawing rights into operation as soon as possible.

Is it not obvious that all currencies are more or less subject to inflation and that therefore over the course of time they are bound to diverge in value? Would it not be better to take account of this fact by an orderly system of variations in exchange rates instead of waiting until it is inevitable to make some catastrophic movement?

I do not follow the hon. Baronet's argument. To the extent that all the currencies are subject to inflation there is no reason why they should diverge in value. If they do diverge in value, it is for reasons different from that. I am not convinced that a change such as the hon. Baronet suggests would necessarily be the best way of bringing about orderly movements.

Since the new American Administration have taken over the previous one's responsibility for the price of gold and accepted their view, will my right hon. Friend consider that, although it may not be necessary to have these big international conferences, what might be very helpful would be to continue discussions with interested Governments so that at least some progress is being made at this level?

It is desirable to have discussions with interested Governments on a very wide range of subjects, and I shall certainly welcome these with the new United States Administration and the new United States Secretary to the Treasury. I do not think that it is desirable to raise a wide range of issues and I do not think that an ill-prepared major international monetary conference would help to give stability to the present situation.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the admirable progress which has been made so far, particularly at Basle. Will he nevertheless consider having informal discussions with a view to strengthening swap arrangements and increasing their flexibility?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I will continue to consider all these matters.

Has the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council instituted any study of this important matter which was mentioned at the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers recently?

I am certainly in constant and rather closer touch than has hitherto been the practice with Commonwealth Finance Ministers.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made in his studies of ways to reduce the burden on employers of calculating income tax and graduated National Insurance contributions; and if he will make a statement.

No changes are proposed in relation to the machinery of P.A.Y.E. As regards National Insurance, I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper on Earnings-Related Social Security which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is presenting to Parliament today.

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciated the enormous administrative advantages of ending the old-fashioned system of including negative allowances in the Income Tax system and replacing them with positive allowances of equal value?

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has in fact written a pamphlet on this subject. The only thing that can be done at present is to abolish the stamp that is being proposed in the White Paper and to make contributions to pensions payable through the P.A.Y.E. system.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study he has given to the reactivation of the scarce currency clauses of the International Monetary Fund rules; and if he will make a statement.

That part of the scarce currency provisions of the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund which permits the Fund to replenish its holdings of strong currencies by borrowing has been used. No useful purpose would be served by trying to activate the remaining provisions in present conditions.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that no monetary system is likely to work unless in the last resort there is some provision for external corrective for countries which are either unable or unwilling to correct a long-term surplus or deficit position as suggested in the I.M.F. rules, to which he drew attention earlier? Does not the right hon. Gentleman further agree that the present proposals for the recycling of monetary movement are designed merely to perpetuate surpluses and deficits?

With the very general statement with which the hon. Gentleman began I think I would agree. I think that the scarce currency clause has been to some extent activated and to some extent superseded by the general agreement to borrow in 1962. In any case, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well indeed, any procedure on these matters could be dons only with agreement. The activation of the scarce currency clause has never commended itself to the American Government and would pose very considerable problems within the European Economic Community.

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

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on the balance of payments outturn for 1968 and his latest estimates for the corresponding figure for 1969.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the balance of payments for the second half of 1968.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the balance of payments outturn for 1969.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the estimated balance of payments outturn in 1969.

I have nothing to add to the Answer given to a similar Question on 21st January.—[Vol. 776, c. 229–30.]

Since the level of exports unfortunately is not going ahead as rapidly as was hoped for, and since there is probably little more that can be done to help in this direction, will my right hon. Friend turn his attention to the other side of the equation—the level of imports—in a situation where he can act; and will he do something about the obsessional fear that the Treasury has concerning import quotas?

The Treasury has no obsessional fears. My hon. Friend is not right in saying that the level of exports is not going ahead as rapidly as was hoped. In fact, we are ahead of our export hopes. As my hon. Friend and the House knows, imports, although they have not increased but have indeed turned down slightly, have remained at a stubbornly high level during 1968, but the House will also be aware that I took certain measures on 22nd November.

Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer recall that 1968 was the fourth successive year in which he and his predecessor forecast a balance of payments surplus for Britain? Can he tell us specifically what is the latest status of his current forecast of a £500 million surplus at the end of 1969? Has it slipped back into 1970 yet or been downgraded?

Not unnaturally, I suppose I recall 1968 better than the preceding years. I did not in fact forecast a balance of payments surplus. I forecast that we would be in surplus in the second part of the year. We were not in surplus, though the second half of the year was a very substantial and a very necessary improvement on the first half of the year; and I believe that that improvement will continue throughout 1969.

Is it not these very judgments which turn out to be wrong which affect the confidence which people can have in our economy? Did not 1968 have the biggest visible trade gap since 1951? How does that compare, for example, with what the Prime Minister was saying at the General Election—again a false judgment?

It is a very partial look at the balance of payments to single out the visible trade gap. By taking invisibles one has a very different picture, and by taking that balance of payments as a whole there is a different and better picture than one had in 1964. The hon. Member was, therefore, taking partial figures.

Irrespective of the pressures which will be put on him, will my right hon. Friend continue his policy of moderate restraint of consumer expenditure until the balance of payments is under satisfactory control?

I certainly intend to continue to take whatever measures are necessary to improve the balance of payments.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great weaknesses in 1968 was the £456 million of private capital which left this country in the first nine months of the year, the highest figure in any year since 1945? Will he not now learn the lessons of that and take steps in 1969 to restrict private portfolio investment going to Australia and South Africa?

I would make two points to begin with. First, the point made by my hon. Friend is in direct contradiction to the points put to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary from the benches opposite in arguing that we were completely starving the country of overseas investment. Secondly, as I have pointed out to my hon. Friend previously, it is misleading to take the gross outflow without taking the net capital position, which, although, in my view, not satisfactory—certainly not in the first six months of the year, although in the third quarter there was a substantial surplus in capital account—is very different from the picture given by taking merely the outflow without dealing with the inflow as well.

Would it not be more realistic and still quite satisfactory to talk of a surplus for 1969 at the rate of about £200 million rather than £500 million? Would not this give us greater opportunity for a higher level of growth and employment?

No, I do not think so. Indeed, the position in 1968 from a growth point of view has not, I think, been unsatisfactory. Nineteen sixty-eight was a strong year for growth and, I may say, has been almost the only year for a decade or more past—the only year, I think—in which we have combined a reasonably high rate of growth with an improved balance of payment position. In every other year in which we have had a substantial rate of growth, we have had a worsening balance of payment position. We need it to improve still further, but it has been improving considerably with a high rate of growth.

Will the Chancellor publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT an amended forecast taking into account the actual performance of the economy as against the figures which he originally put in the Financial Statement?

No, Sir. I put figures in the Financial Statement. I intend to put some figures in the next Financial Statement.

They will be wrong.

It is no good the hon. and learned Member bleating out that they are wrong in that way. What I have indicated—

They are wrong.

What, I think, is generally the view of the House is that it is desirable and contributes to intelligent discussion, in which I do not expect the hon. and learned Baronet to join, that we should publish the working assumptions, knowing perfectly well that no forecasts will ever be right in all respects.

Will the Chancellor continue to publish his assumptions, which are at least a great step forward from what we had before? As, however, publication of the monthly trade figures has a considerable effect on the confidence on which the balance of payments ultimately depends, are they not becoming more and more misleading as large shipments may take place in or out in any given month? Is the right hon. Gentleman considering publishing the figures in any different form?

This is primarily a matter in the first instance for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who publishes the figures. I have, however, considered the point and I think that it would be a mistake not to continue with monthly publication. It is increasingly important that publication, whilst giving all the basic facts, should be in such a form as to stress the underlying trends, and I believe that there is indication that people, both here and outside this country, are coming increasingly to look to the underlying trends rather than merely to the fluctuations, which can be very wide from one month to another.

On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Chancellor's reply, I will raise the matter again.

The hon. and learned Member will not. He never does.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the annual report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies for 1967 will not be published before 18th December, 1968, in view of the fact that the returns about trades unions required by the Registrar have to be in his hands by 1st June in any year; and whether he will take steps to speed up this process.

Preparation of the Registrar's report requires analysis of the returns of more than 400 trade unions, and this is a considerable operation. Furthermore, returns by a number of larger unions were up to three months late. Printing took a further two months after the report had been completed. The arrangements are being examined with a view to somewhat earlier publication of the report in future years.

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for trying to hasten the process, because the length which he has described seems unnecessary, especially the two months for printing. Is the reason why some of the unions were late in sending their reports the fact that they had difficulty in dealing with the documents of the nearly quarter of a million trade unionists who contracted out during the year due to dissatisfaction with the Labour Government?

The timing of the returns is governed by the Trade Union Act, 1871. The delay is nothing unusual.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek the consent of Members of Parliament to the publication of information regarding the present level of expenditure, wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred by them in the performance of their Parliamentary duties.

I am circulating with the OFFICIAL REPORT a table in similar form to tables previously published which classifies the amounts of Members' expenses allowed for Income Tax purposes against their remuneration as Members of Parliament for the year 1967–68, the latest year for which figures are available. The table includes only those cases where final figures are available. Ministers have not been included.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am grateful for that indication that the Government do not intend to perpetuate a system under which the only control of a professional Government is that of an amateur House of Commons? Does he agree that it is time that the public were made aware of the true financial position of those hon. Members who are not in receipt of outside subsidy and that the only tools with which hon. Members have to do their work are those which they provide themselves?

I hope that the figures in the table will be of satisfaction to the hon. Member.

Is it not absurd that inspectors of taxes are now trying to assess the private part of an hon. Member's London flat, for example, where his wife happens to join him occasionally? Will my right hon. Friend look at this again or ask the inspectors to look at it again?

I will, of course, look with care at anything which my hon. Friends ask me to look at, but my hon. Friend would be the first to join me and to share the view that Members of Parliament should continue to be treated exactly like every other member of the public in their tax assessments.

In the context of this Question, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the position of servants of the House of Commons? Does he not agree that it is absolutely disgraceful when one hears that the widow of a servant of the House is left penniless?

That is a matter for hon. Members personally. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. For the Government."] That is a matter for Members personally. As the hon. Member is, no doubt, aware, those who wish to help are able to do so. The Question on the Order Paper deals with expenses.

Has not my right hon. Friend missed the point raised by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) that the public are not aware of the expense incurred by hon. Members and are of the opinion that the salary of £3,250 is retained by hon. Members?

My right hon. Friend will see from the table that that very information is given. It is a detailed table, but it indicates that the majority of hon. Members incur expenses, which are allowed for Income Tax, of between £1,000 and £2,000 a year.

Why are many items and expenditures, such as railway travel and newspapers and journals which are essential in the performance of the Parliamentary duty, not allowed against the Parliamentary salary? Will the right hon. Gentleman revise the rules so that these items can be allowed against tax?

The answer to the hon. Member is that these rules apply to all holders of an office or of employment. All Schedule E taxpayers are treated in the same way. If the hon. Member is suggesting that a Member of this House is being singled out for adverse treatment, I would be only too glad to look at his suggestion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had about convening a further meeting of the Finance Ministers of the Group of Ten.

None, Sir.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the last meeting at Bonn did not really solve anything, and would it not be better to have new talks now in the comparative peace of the present situation rather than wait for a new crisis?

No, Sir. I do not agree that the last meeting at Bonn solved nothing. It solved certain problems and made substantial progress. However, assuming that my hon. Friend is right, I find it a little difficult to follow why the fact that one conference was unsuccessful—which I do not accept, as I say—should be an argument for having another.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had on bilateral and multilateral swap arrangements since the meeting of Finance Ministers of the Group of Ten in Bonn in November, 1968.

As foreshadowed in the communiqué issued after the Bonn meeting of the Group of Ten, discussions have been taking place between central bank governors about possible ways to alleviate the impact on reserves of speculative movements.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the monthly reports of failures that one reads about as coming from Basle, where the governors meet regularly, are not particularly helpful to stability, and could he say when he expects to be able to make a report on the success of these arrangements?

I should not like to give a definite date. Nether do I think that one should be pessimistic about failure at Basle. There have been substantial successes at Basle during the past year, not least relating to the Basle agreements mentioned earlier. The questions raised by my hon. Friend are complicated, involving several countries, and it would be dangerous for me to give an exact forecast of when a statement could be made. However, if the outcome is of significance to the United Kingdom's financial position, I promise that I shall announce it to the House.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer now answer a question which I asked him earlier on this matter? Does he not agree that proposals for recycling monetary movements can only involve, and are designed to involve, the perpetuation of both surpluses and deficits? Further, while he is on the subject, will he ensure that we have time for a debate on the Basle agreement?

That raises wide-ranging questions, one relating to a supplementary question on a previous Question, and another raising a matter for the Leader of the House, and it would not be entirely appropriate for me to deal with that. However, I agree that recycling arrangements do not deal with the root of the problem, though one can have flows which arise for speculative reasons and not purely from imbalance in the trade position.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what weekly wage the following persons commence paying income tax, namely, a single man, a married man without children, a married man with one child under 11 years of age, and a married man with two children under 11 years of age.

About £5 9s. 0d., £8 8s. 0d., £11 5s. 0d. and £12 7s. 6d. respectively.

Do not those figures clearly demonstrate that the starting point for Income Tax for people with low incomes is far too low, and could this be borne in mind when the Budget proposals are being framed?

In his last Budget speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he regarded the raising of the threshold in easier circumstances as a high priority. I cannot add to that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that no taxpayer is obliged to pay Income Tax on income he does not receive.

My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is in correspondence with the hon. Member.

How much money has been stolen from taxpayers by this means since this indefensible state of affairs was created?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's exact question is, "None, Sir."

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the meeting of central bankers in Basle over the weekend of 7th December.

No, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no communiqué was issued after these talks? Is not that undesirable, since it gives ground for rumours, and will this be considered at future meetings?

I am not sure that the issue of a communiqué necessarily suppresses rumour, particularly if talks take place in a rumour-mongering atmosphere, as was the case that weekend, now some weeks ago, to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in the total sum collected in taxation, comparing the year 1964–65 with the estimate of tax revenue in the year 1968–69.

After making the appropriate adjustments for S.E.T. refunds and the change to investment grants, but before making the necessary adjustment for increased prices, £3,711 million.

Is not this a frightening figure, and does it not show that, in the short period of four years, there has been an increase of about £6 a week in the tax burden of the average family in Britain? How can the Government expect to solve their economic problems so long as enterprise and initiative are so stifled in this way?

I do not accept that enterprise and initiative are stifled at all; they are encouraged.

Can my right hon. Friend give any examples of aircraft purchased from this country by the United States?

I think that we are ahead of my hon. Friend. He is on the previous Question, which was not asked.

What did the right hon. Gentleman mean in his original Answer by the reference to increased prices? Is it not totally wrong to take this into account, when the Government themselves have a large measure of responsibility for increases in prices?

No, Sir. I just wanted to make the point that, when one is measuring a distance, one should use a constant ruler.