asked the Minister of Overseas Development why he will not authorise payment of half of the cost of return fares and of moving baggage for Mr. B. H. Spratt of Wargrave in respect of his service in Barbados.

Mr. Spratt was an employee of the Barbados Government and left Barbados of his own volition and at his own expense after a dispute with that Government about his conditions of service. The cost of his return fares and of moving his baggage was, in the circumstances of his leaving, not met by the Barbados Government and I, therefore, have no authority to pay any of the cost under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme Agreement with Barbados.

I acknowledge the courtesy with which the Minister has personally dealt with this case, but is it not true that my constituent was recruited through the agency of the Minister's Department and that the Department has already paid half the inducement allowance to which my constituent was entitled? It is therefore not easy to see why the Department should not pay for my constituent's travel and baggage in accordance with the terms of his contract.

It is true that recruitment took place through our Department, but the contract is between Mr. Spratt and the Barbados Government. We made representations because we felt that Mr. Spratt had a claim for an inducement allowance, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that claim was acceded to.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether there has now been a resumption of Government aid to Anguilla.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what aid he proposes to give to Anguilla in the financial year 1969–70.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) on 24th March. I will make a further statement as soon as I have had time to consider the recommendations of the officials from my Department who are at present in Anguilla—[Vol. 780, c. 220–21.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision to give assistance is very welcome and that it would be still more welcome if the Government were resolved not to try to achieve Western affluence in the island at the expense of the dignity and culture of the people there, but rather to develop and to strengthen the culture and the traditional pattern of life on the island?

It is our objective both in Anguilla and throughout the world to promote development which is in accordance with the culture and wishes of local governments and peoples and to help them to help themselves with their own development.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people who have been critical of some aspects of the Government's overseas policy do not find the faults with Government policy in this respect which some hon. Gentlemen have found? Has my right hon. Friend any further statement to make arising from reports that some provisional settlement has been reached? What are the overseas development implications of such a settlement if one is around the corner?

I think that the first part of my hon. Friend's question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. On the development aspects, a team from my Department is in Anguilla at the moment, and I expect very shortly to receive detailed proposals from it.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, before it was suspended aid to Anguilla was routed through St. Kitts. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention to provide any aid that may be agreed in future direct to Anguilla, and when can we expect a statement?

The discussions to which I have referred have been between officials of my Department and Mr. Lee. Following the arrangements made by my noble Friend, Lord Caradon. I expect that Mr. Webster and members of the Provincial Council will be brought into those discussions. I expect that in future aid will flow directly to Anguilla, rather than through St. Kitts.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what percentage of Britain's aid overseas to developing countries and territories was tied to British exports in each of the last three years.

Approximately 59 per cent., 60 per cent., and 58 per cent. of our bilateral financial aid was tied in 1966, 1967 and 1968 respectively. Bilateral financial aid is about 65 per cent. of our total programme.

Since one cannot invest a deficit or give it away, cannot these percentages be made a little bigger?

No, Sir. I think it essential, in existing circumstances, while most other aid donors tie a lot of their aid, that we should tie a lot of ours. At the same time the development projects on which we are co-operating must be projects which are viable in the area concerned. This very often involves considerable expenditure on local costs.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will seek to initiate joint aid projects to developing countries with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.

I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer of 25th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks). I was visited last week by the Federal German Minister for Economic Co-operation, Dr. Erhard Eppler, with whom I have had a useful and wide-ranging discussion on a number of important issues in the field of development aid.—[Vol. 778, c. 1255.]

But since those who deal with aid in the Federal Repubic say that they have difficulties over the English tongue and over contacts in the British part of the developing Commonwealth, and since there is money available in Germany, would the right hon. Gentleman look at this again and see whether we cannot have a joint approach?

Dr. Eppler and his officials showed great expertness in the English tongue during their visit, which was very lucky for me. On the broader question, I am willing to look at any aspect of co-operation, but so far as aid projects are concerned, rather than their being arranged bilaterally between two donors, the best thing would be for them to be co-ordinated and channelled through O.E.C.D. and other multilateral organisations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both my hon. Friend and I on a recent visit to Germany were disturbed to find that there was little co-operation between our two countries in the aid field, and a great deal of overlapping, and that there appeared to be a desire to get closer together with us, especially in regard to joint schemes and joint action to insure against political risk?

I would not agree that there is a great deal of overlapping, which is avoided in many ways, not only between Germany and ourselves but with other aid donors. I am always willing to look at new methods of co-operation with my German opposite number, and some of these were discussed a few days ago.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what he estimates will be this year's cost to public funds in respect of aid given to underdeveloped countries which are and which are not, respectively, members of the British Commonwealth.

In 1968–69, £160 million for Commonwealth countries, excluding contingency aid to Zambia, and £21 million for foreign countries. In addition, multilateral aid is estimated at £34 million but cannot be apportioned between Commonwealth and foreign countries.

But cannot we begin to move forward to the point at which need as a criterion begins to exceed past association?

It is sensible that not only Britain but other aid donors should provide a large proportion of their aid programme for countries with which they have historical connections. There are mutual experiences here and various links which help to ensure that the aid is administered efficiently and more quickly than it would be if one were starting afresh elsewhere.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what was the percentage of gross national product of British official overseas aid in 1964 and in 1968.

The figure for 1964 is 0·58 per cent. The figure for 1968 is not yet available, but that for 1967 was 0·53 per cent.

Since it seems that the percentage for 1968 will be even lower, would my right hon. Friend say which other Department of State, other than Defence, is getting a smaller percentage of the gross national product than it was getting in 1964?

I could not answer that without notice, and even if I had notice I should probably have to transfer the question to one of my right hon. Friends. The House should recognise that the amount of aid has increased under the present Government. Because the G.N.P. has increased faster, the percentage is somewhat down, as I indicated in my original Answer.

Is it not a fact that the developing countries look not only for official aid for their development but for private investment as well? Has not there been the same decline in that sector in terms of the proportion of the G.N.P. as hi the case of official aid and has not this been due to the discouragement which the Government have consistently given to private overseas investment? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a talk with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this?

That also goes rather wide of my responsibilities. I agree, however, that private flows are important and are included in the U.N.C.T.A.D. target to which we are committed. Adding together private and official flows, we are reaching about 0·8 per cent. of the 1 per cent. of the G.N.P. to which we are committed and which we hope to reach as soon as possible.

Is not my right hon. Friend falling short of his aims and ambitions in this respect and are not the Government falling short of their policy in regard to aid? What does my right hon. Friend propose to do about it?

I suggest that the aims and ambitions of all hon. Members are designed to reach a higher performance in this respect as soon as our balance of payments problem allows us to do so.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what plans he has or is negotiating in order to aid the development of industry in Nepal.

None, Sir. Some of our aid has been used for purposes such as electricity supply, but the Government of Nepal are not currently asking us for help for industrial development.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a need for this aid in Nepal, particularly in view of the service which her people have given us in years gone by and particularly since the amount of money going into the country through pensions and so on is reducing and there is a need for development in the Katmandu area? Would he look at this again?

There is a need for aid, of course, but it was to industrial development that the hon. Gentleman's question was directed, and we consider that our aid would be more useful to Nepal if given in other fields. For example, we have commitments to a large road project, a boys' boarding school and in other ways, and we believe that these have equal or perhaps prior claims on our aid.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will review the criteria laid down for Voluntary Service Overseas with a view to relating them more closely to the requirements of the countries receiving these volunteers.

I am satisfied that the four Societies within the British Volunteer Programme regularly review both the qualifications and also the training and orientation needed by graduate and professionally qualified volunteers to match overseas needs.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that many people are perfectly well qualified in the view of the countries which would receive them but do not come up to the criteria of his Department? Does he not agree that we are leaving out many people who want to serve overseas countries in many capacities, whom those countries would accept, but who are debarred from serving because of the criteria laid down?

It is not up to us to tell developing countries what their needs are. The societies submit the volunteers selected by their panels to the overseas countries before appointment is taken up. There is close liaison between the societies and the overseas countries, and I do not think that the scheme is open to the criticism which the hon. Gentleman makes.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what financial support he has given to the Pacific Islands Producers Association; and if he will make a statement.

A full-time Secretary to the Pacific Islands Producers' Association was recruited by my Ministry and appointed in February, 1969, for a period of three years under technical assistance arrangements.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware how greatly that Answer will be appreciated in the Pacific and how important this is regarded by the islanders?

Yes. I know that there were some difficulties in connection with the work of this Association, and on inquiry it was found that this form of help would be most useful to them. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the movement of the terms of trade between 1964 and 1968 in relation to each of the countries in the Commonwealth in receipt of British aid.

Data are not immediately available for the terms of trade of developing Commonwealth countries with the United Kingdom and it would take several weeks to compile them. I am publishing a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT which shows the available figures relating to the global terms of trade of certain developing Commonwealth countries and of certain regions. I regret that the information supplied is somewhat fragmentary, but many developing countries do not construct price indices for their exports and imports.

While appreciating the difficulties and expressing gratitude to my right hon. Friend for providing such information as is available, may I ask whether he does not agree that it is important that the strategy of British overseas aid should take into account the vulnerability of many countries to adverse movements of the terms of trade, which can often neutralise the benefits of aid programmes?

Yes, Sir. This is one of the many factors which we take into account. Going beyond that, it is clear that both the right trade policies and the right aid policies are needed side by side for successful development.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development why Messrs. Golding, Rowbottom and Saunders, who were expelled from Kenya, have not yet received full payment for their farms sold under the Kenya resettlement scheme financed largely by British public funds.

I understand that payments due to the three farmers for their farms have been made in full. The hon. Member has recently written to me regarding alleged delays in respect of these payments. These are being investigated and I hope to reply soon.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's reassurance, but would he bear in mind that these farms were taken over six months after the date agreed, that standing crops were not paid for and that, of the money which has been paid, a large amount has been frozen in Kenya, subject to income tax demands?

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that that last point is being cleared up. I will take up his other point in the letter which I shall write.

Would the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will be equally sympathetic towards the claims of those other British citizens, holders of United Kingdom passports, resident in Kenya, who happen to have different coloured skins from Messrs. Golding, Rowbottom and Saunders?

That seems to me to be a different question.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what aid has recently been given or is proposed for the Somali Republic; and if he will make a statement.

Since diplomatic relations were resumed in January 1968, we have mounted a programme of technical assistance to Somalia which, including training in Britain, we expect before long to cost up to £200,000 a year. We are also providing £60,000 a year to help the Somali Government to meet their obligations for the payment of pensions of officials of the former Somaliland Protectorate.

Would the hon. Gentleman remember that the Italian Government has presented Somaliland with both a Parliament and a university? Could we not be more generous towards the teaching of the English language, which is both needed and wanted in Somaliland?

We are building up, as my original Answer showed, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, within the limitations of the aid ceiling, there is not much room for manoeuvre when new countries come into aid and diplomatic relationships with us.

May I ask my hon. Friend a Question about the old, English-speaking North Somaliland? Has the British Council begun to function there, and is it functioning successfully? Have we a consulate there to give visas to those citizens in the North who wish to leave the country?

I ask my hon. Friend to give me notice of those specific points.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether the contribution made by the Government to Nigerian/Biafran relief is to be met out of the existing aid ceiling without addition to the money already allocated for overseas aid.

All the relief we have pledged is to come from money already allocated for overseas aid, but the £500,000 for food grains derives from our commitment to the Rome Food Aid Convention and is additional to the normal aid ceiling.

Does not that mean that the contribution which we have made for relief to Nigeria in these exceptional circumstances is being bought at the expense of needy developing countries in other parts of the world? Would not it be more generous to add to the existing aid ceiling the amount which we have given in relief to Nigera?

There are two points to bear in mind. The first is the overwhelming feeling in the House that we were right to have made a substantial contribution to relief in this situation. The second is the immense pressure on public resources and the need to include new expenditure in the ceiling which has already been settled.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development what aid in the form of grants for capital projects has been given in the current financial year to the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Congo, Kinshasa, and Somalia, respectively.

It is estimated that in the 1968–69 financial year grants amounting to about £38,000 will have been provided to the Central African Republic. No capital aid for projects has been disbursed in 1968–69 to Ethiopia, the Congo, Kinshasa, or the Somali Republic.

Bearing in mind the single figure which my hon. Friend has given and not forgetting that Somalia was once part of the Commonwealth and is closely linked to us by language and other ties, would my hon. Friend urge his right hon. Friend to keep in mind, when fixing next year's aid budget, the fact that the old capital of North Somali, Hargeisa, still needs a piped water system?

We shall certainly bear that in mind. To answer the main point of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, which was concerned with Somalia, he will be aware that there is, as I indicated in an earlier Answer, a considerable programme of technical assistance being built up.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to improve the accuracy of assessment for tax purposes of the incomes of the self-employed.

The Revenue do all that can reasonably be done with the staff available.

Why do the Government treat self-employed people like gipsies? They are assessed for Income Tax purposes according to purely artificial conventions and they are to be excluded from earnings-related social security benefits. Are not the Government admitting their incompetence?

No, Sir. The simple answer is that to adopt a perfectionist attitude in this matter would lead to an immense amount of work without any worthwhile gain.

Is not the Financial Secretary aware of the utter waste of time which arises from the issue of Schedule D provisional assessments on self-employed people in August and September when, if the Revenue waited for two or three months, they could be issued as accurate assessments based on information supplied?

These delays are often produced by taxpayers—but I am not clear what the hon. Gentleman wants us to do about them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the further discussions he has had with the banks on the question of their compliance with his recommendations on total lending.

The recently published figures for March have shown welcome progress towards the 98 per cent. target. The figures were discussed at a recent meeting between the Governor of the Bank of England and the London clearing banks, which again pointed out the problems involved for them. The Governor emphasised that further progress is still required.

Is my right hon. Friend also changing his policy in regard to gilt-edged so as to avoid any nullifying effect that there may be in any success that he may be having in this respect? If the banks do not comply with his request, does he intend to use his powers under the 1946 Act? Will he at least advise the President of the Board of Trade to get the banks to publish their accounts?

The banks have co-operated throughout and there is no reason to doubt that they will continue to co-operate.

Would the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position from the point of view of the priority which is to be accorded to agriculture in general and to farmers in particular so that they may get credit for the expansion programme of his right hon. Friend in the present credit-restricted position? Is there to be priority for farmers and is it to be on a par with, for example, the export industry?

The position in regard to priority for farmers is unchanged.

Reverting to the main Question, since the banks' difficulties arose largely out of differential interest rates in the banking and parallel money markets, will my right hon. Friend accept, especially as his borrowing requirement for the next year will be negative, the need for him to operate more boldly in the gilt-edged market through the operation of the market?

I have taken note of what my hon. Friend said.

What would the 98 per cent. figure be if it were adjusted to allow for the change in the value of money between the base period and now?

I would require notice of that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the overall balance of payments surplus to be achieved in 1969; and what is his estimate for the following five years.

I advise my hon. Friend to wait for my right hon. Friend's Budget speech.

Does that mean that the Chancellor is changing his policy and is no longer going for a £500 million target for the foreseeable future? Would not this be the best thing to do in so far as it does not particularly help us or the expansion of world trade to pursue that sort of unattainable target?

My hon. Friend obviously does not wish to accept my advice. I imagine that he will find my right hon. Friend's speech on this subject more rewarding that he would find a brief answer from me to a supplementary question.

Why is the Financial Secretary prepared to lend the vestigial authority of his office to these wholly spurious and bogus forecasts of events over which the Government have had no control for some years and over which they are likely to have even less control in the future?

I have always been careful not to lend even my vestigial authority to bogus forecasts.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the additional cost to the balance of payments of interest payments on central bank swaps or additional borrowings from international institutions designed to postpone the repayment of earlier borrowings due to mature in 1969–70 until 1971–72 or 1972–73.

This is a hypothetical question and there is no satisfactory basis on which it can be answered.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not a hypothetical question and that very substantial additional interest charges will be incurred by the Government thanks largely to the dilatoriness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last spring? Would he undertake to ensure that any conditions which are imposed on additional borrowing overseas by the Government will be fully explained to, and debated by, the House?

The House is always kept fully informed of events of this character in so far as that is regarded as acceptable by normal precedent.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government's examination into the value added tax will be completed; and whether a report will be published.

I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on this subject so soon in advance of the Budget.

Has not the Chief Secretary recognised that one way out of our economic malaise would be for us to have substantial cuts in direct taxation—Income Tax and Surtax? Is he aware that if these cuts were achieved, we should need broadly based indirect taxes, probably of a value-added nature or a sales tax? What is Government policy on this matter?

I can guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that he will have Government policy one fortnight from today.

None the less, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in considering the prospects of value-added tax the disastrous effects it would have on consumer prices?

Yes, of course. There are substantial arguments on both sides in regard to a value-added tax, and I note what my hon. Friend said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the yield of short-term Capital Gains Tax to be in the years 1968–69 and 1969–70.

About £5 million in 1968–69. It is not the practice to publish estimates for the coming year in advance of the Budget statement.

Does not the Chief Secretary agree that as the yield of this tax is very small and as most of it would be caught under the long-term Capital Gains Tax in any event, there is no justification for maintaining both a short-term and a long-term Capital Gains Tax? Why does the Minister not roll the two together?

It is not correct to say "most of it". It is correct to say that only one half of it would be collected. I have much greater respect for taxes brought in by the Conservative Party than has the hon. Member.

Is not the object of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) in his Question to transfer the burden of taxation from the wealthy to the less economically privileged? Will my right hon. Friend resist that?

I would not agree with my hon. Friend that the hon. Member has given any real thought to the matter at all. All he is concerned with is to remove the burden of tax from his own shoulders.

Oh.

May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which I have postponed until the end of Question Time? This arises out of an answer by the Chief Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) on Question No. 25, which was a purely routine Question about the yield of a tax. At the end of the supplementaries the Chief Secretary said words to the effect that my hon. Friend was interested only in reducing his own burden of taxation. We know the Chief Secretary well and I am quite certain, if I may say so, that he did not mean that, but it stands like that in HANSARD. I should be grateful either for a comment by the Chief Secretary or for a Ruling by you.

Order. I took it to be a light-hearted remark. I should be grateful, however, if the Chief Secretary would make a comment.

When I replied to a question by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker)—I am trying to recollect the words exactly—I referred to his being concerned with the removing of the burden of taxation and went on to say "from his own shoulders". That was a comment which was lacking in courtesy and I therefore spoke to the hon. Member and asked him whether he would wish me to withdraw it and to apologise publicly. He said that he did not wish me to do so. That fact reflects great credit on the spirit of the hon. Member but it does not relieve me of the need to withdraw those words, which I do unreservedly.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the rate of Purchase Tax on British-made tutor strip projectors purchased by educational authorities for audio-visual language teaching.

Projectors suitable only for filmstrip are exempt from Purchase Tax. Projectors which can be used for either filmstrip or slides are chargeable with Purchase Tax at the current effective rate of 55 per cent. of the wholesale value.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that Purchase Tax causes educational establishments to import foreign machines for this purpose as, with the cuts in education, it is essential to buy the cheaper of the two articles, and that this operates against the Treasury?

I do not understand the reason for the hon. Member's assertion since foreign goods pay Purchase Tax as well as any other tax appropriate to imported goods.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the average weekly increase in motoring costs for the owner of an 1100 c.c. car costing about £760 averaging 10,000 miles a year and 35 miles per gallon, taking into account the changes in petrol and lubricating oil duty, motor vehicle licences, and the additional depreciation to allow for purchase tax increases, since October, 1964.

About 14s. 9d.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for revealing that deplorable figure. Will not the Government realise even at this late stage that to many millions of people the motor car is essential as a means of getting to work and is not a luxury to be taxed out of existence?

I see no immediate evidence that it is a luxury being taxed out of existence.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an undertaking that the Import Deposits Scheme will cease on 5th December, 1969, and will not be revived, so as to enable manufacturers using imported materials to prepare their costings and make their capital budgets.

The Customs (Import Deposits) Act ceases to have effect on 5th December, 1969. As my right hon. Friend said on 22nd November when introducing this Scheme, it is not one which could or should be kept in being for more than a limited period and I have nothing to add to that statement.

May we take it from that reply that the Financial Secretary is giving the assurance that it will not be prolonged? Does he not realise how critical it is to industry for its costings, quotations and investment plans to know that the scheme will come to an end after 12 months?

My Answer is perfectly clear and I do not think that I can usefully add to it.

Will my hon. Friend publish his estimate of the effects of the scheme on imports and also perhaps publish his estimate of the amounts or the actual amounts received from all sources and the effect on liquidity generally?

I will consider my hon. Friend's request, but I must tell him that it is not only predictions as to the future which can be bogus. Assessments of imponderables in the past can be equally unreliable.

Will the Financial Secretary recognise that much has happened since last November and firm up his Answer by simply saying "Yes, Sir"?

No, Sir.

Does not the Financial Secretary realise that by giving that last answer he has injected precisely the note of doubt which he could so easily clear up and which will be disastrous if it is left?

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in supposing that there is any doubt about the Government's position. It has been clearly stated.

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

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the percentage increase in the costs of laundries and dry cleaners resulting from Selective Employment Tax.

No precise figures are available, but I estimate the effect to be roughly 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. for laundries and 3½ per cent. to 5 per cent. for dry cleaners.

Is not the Chief Secretary aware that this tax has resulted in the closing of a large number of firms which calculate that the crarge is greater than the figures which he has given? Will he undertake to give some immediate relief to this very important service industry?

I am aware of the difficulties of the industry and I am aware that the hon. Member speaks with great authority on this matter. I shall certainly bear in mind what he said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the size of the net Government account overseas for the year 1969.

I should not like to give an exact estimate, but the level of expenditure will be somewhat higher than the average level in the years 1963 to 1967, as given in the Answer by my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 4th March to the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale). This is because of increases in payments for U.S. military aircraft, in our contribution to the International Development Association, and in interest payments on external debt.—[Vol. 779, c. 205.]

Could not the Financial Secretary be a little more precise than that? Does he not realise that this item is a very large proportion of the net invisible account and that over the years 1960 to 1967 the net Government account overseas produced a net deficit amounting to 70 per cent. of the total net surplus in the private sector? Could he not be more precise and perhaps give estimates or forecasts from time to time?

I know that I should provide a great deal of amusement by providing forecasts, but I do not think much else would be usefully done by offering them.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that this is a figure which has been criticised time and time again as well out of line with what we can afford and that we have been promised reductions arising from certain actions taken by the Government—and that those reductions have not been forthcoming?

The Question did not relate to the substance of the expenditure but to the method of presenting it to the public at large.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for improving the presentation of the annual balance of payments as well as the monthly and quarterly components.

I am aware of certain disadvantages in the existing presentation of the balance of payments, particularly in the division between long-term and short-term capital. Alternative methods of presentation are being considered, but these would apply to yearly and quarterly data only.

Will the Financial Secretary accept that he must try to keep the yearly version of the figures more consistent with each other? The 1967 balance of long-term capital movements, for example, when first published in March, 1969, in Economic Trends, showed minus £26 million and when published on 28th March this year, a yeas later, it showed minus £116 million. That is a very wide variation between two figures which presented the same reality. Could the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this will be looked into, as well as the major presentation?

Certainly, but this collection of figures some time after the event is one of the unfortunate necessities which have afflicted every Government statistician.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent further consultations he has had with the building societies relating to the mortgage rate of interest; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on 17th March and to the Answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) on 20th March.—[Vol. 780, c. 42–44.]

Between the two dates, on 19th March, as the Chief Secretary will recall, he expressed surprise at the haste with which the building societies had reacted to the increase in Bank Rate. Why has he not done something about this, following his surprise, by asking them to temper the wind?

The comment which I permitted myself was about the speed with which they reacted. I do not withdraw that comment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now set up an official inquiry to study the problem of mortgage rates.

I explained in answer to Questions and in debate the week before last why the Government considered that there should be no further inquiry at the present time.

That is a most unsatisfactory Answer. Is my right hon. Friend aware that overwhelming pressure of public opinion is building up, which indicates that he should look again at mortgage rates, particularly the question whether they reflect the rate supposed to be paid by owner-occupiers, namely, 8½ per cent.? It has been suggested that much more than that is being paid, and I am sure that an inquiry will bring that out.

The rate to which my hon. Friend referred is that recommended by the Building Societies Association. I understand that most building societies have accepted the recommendation, but it is always the case that certain individual societies may charge a different rate, sometimes slightly more. It is also the case that many building societies are required by their contracts to continue the existing rate.

Is it not a fact that mortgage interest rates must be directly related to the rate paid by the societies to borrow money? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Co-operative Permanent Building Society leads the field by offering 9⅜ per cent. gross for small deposits?

I was not aware that the Co-operative Society leads the field in this, but I am not at all surprised that it does so in this as in other respects.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he plans to have further discussions with the Building Societies Association about mortgage rates.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) on 20th March.—[Vol. 780, c. 138.]

Will my right hon. Friend have yet another look at this matter? He said in our debate that he thought that the building societies were a little hasty in putting up the rate. Will he not go further and take the matter back for further thought?

I do not want my hon. Friend to think that this is a matter to which we do not give the most careful and continuing thought. I repeat what I said then, but it does not affect the present situation. The building societies are responsible for their own decisions, and I do not think that there is any cause at present for further discussions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to require joint stock banks to compete amongst each other in the rates of interest they offer to their customers.

I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) on 4th March.—[Vol. 779, c. 65.]

Does the Financial Secretary recall that the Prices and Incomes Board recommended a measure of this kind almost two years ago? Although the Prices and Incomes Board has produced a great deal of fatuity, occasionally it offers a glimpse of the obvious. Would it not help the Government in their control of credit by enabling market forces to control the rates of interest and the price charged to borrowers both in the public and in the private sectors?

If the hon. Member will refer to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Meriden, which in turn referred him to the statement by the President of the Board of Trade, he will see that this matter is under review.

Is not the position that with inflation running as it is, the demand for bank credit is enormously larger than supply whatever is the interest rate?

That is another and larger question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he now estimates that he will achieve the forecast rate of growth for the economy in 1969 made on 17th January, 1968.

I would ask the hon. Member to await my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

That is a quite unsatisfactory Answer. The original forecast of a 4 per cent. rate of growth for 1969 was made not in the context of last year's Budget statement but on 17th January, 1968. Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that we shall have at least the 4 per cent. safe, sustainable rate of growth in 1969 that the Chancellor forecast long after his last Budget?

With his usual accuracy, the hon. Gentleman has referred to my right hon. Friend's statement in January, 1968, when he said that he believed we could reckon on a growth rate of some 4 per cent. a year for that year and next. "That year" was 1968, and for 1968 the economy grew at about 4 per cent. My right hon. Friend will be dealing with 1969 and associated matters in his Budget speech.

If the Chancellor were prepared last year to forecast the figures for 1969, why is he not prepared to do so now?

Because he expects that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House would like to have up-to-date information.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the level of personal saving in the United Kingdom since the Budget last year; and how this compares with the level of saving in each of the last five years, respectively.

For figures on personal saving up to the third quarter of last year, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to Table D in the article on National Income and Expenditure in the January, 1969 edition of Economic Trends. Figures for the fourth quarter of last year will be published in the National Income White Paper on 9th April.

The hon. Gentleman must agree that that is one of the least informative answers he could possibly have given. Does not he agree that the steady decline in saving reported by virtually all the savings media is a matter of the deepest possible concern to the country and to the Chancellor in preparing his Budget?

Certainly my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is well aware of the need for encouraging savings in all forms.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount the value of bank notes in circulation has increased in the last 12 months and in the last five years, respectively.

The respective figures are £149 million and £745 million.

Does not this invisible and highly inflationary form of Government income invalidate the Government's claim to make additional Budget surpluses in the current year? Will this be taken into full consideration when the Chancellor makes his Budget Statement in two weeks time?

The view that allowing citizens to split their assets into bank accounts and cash, to their convenience, is inflationary is based upon the most naïve assumptions, which cannot be justified.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to remove the Purchase Tax on brass and military band instruments.

I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Would my hon. Friend take into account that in many towns and villages the brass bands and other bands are working on a shoestring? Would he also take into account that the St. John's Ambulance Brigade, the Salvation Army and many other organisations are finding it very difficult to purchase new instruments? Will he please reduce the Purchase Tax on these instruments?

As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I am sure that the Chancellor has these thoughts continuously, or nearly continuously, in mind.

Questions to the Prime Minister.

On a point of order. Can you Mr. Speaker, or any of my right hon. Friends, explain why a very important Question that I put down eight to 10 days ago to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—

Order. I should prefer that the hon. Gentleman raised his point of order at the end of Question time.