asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will send a circular to Welsh road authorities urging the use of the proper form of Welsh place names on all road signs.

I have been asked to reply.

There is nothing that my right hon. Friend can add to the Answer he gave the hon. Member on 6th November last year.—[Vol. 772, c. 129.]

Is the right hon. Lady aware that some of the most eminent and highly respected non-political leaders in Wales are increasingly supporting the very reasonable demand that our place names should be used, that our national language should be used on road signs, and that our language should be given equality of status with English in a country where it has been spoken for almost 2,000 years? Why are the Government dragging their feet in these matters?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he fully understands the nature of the responsibilities exercised respectively by local authorities and by the Government in this matter. If the local population of Wales, in any area, wish their towns to be renamed, or the road signs to be redesigned, it is for them to influence their local community, and the Government will not stand in their way.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a further statement on the explosions in Wales.

I have been asked to reply.

Everyone will feel the deepest concern about the recent wholly deplorable and tragic incidents. I understand that three men have been charged as a result of the incident at Holyhead on 25th June and that the police are actively pursuing their investigations into the explosions in Cardiff on 30th June and in Abergele early this morning. I cannot properly say more at this stage.

May I express my sense of shock at the horrifying tragedy last night, and may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she is aware that no solid piece of evidence has yet been produced to show that these explosions, which we all condemn, are the work of anybody connected with the Welsh Nationalist movement? If it should come to light that they are the work of, say, anarchists, or people who are not Welsh, will members of the Government apologise to the Welsh people for the way they have exploited them in order to prevent the advance of the Welsh nation towards national freedom?

I think that the whole House will rather regret the tone of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says on his own behalf, but one is bound to observe what the party's organiser in South Wales was quoted as saying as recently as last weekend. I think that the whole House will wish to be concerned to express every possible sympathy with the people of Wales for the tragic events which have occurred during the last 24 hours, and we should be concerned to ensure that there is no element whatsoever of the Welsh nation which is prepared to express any degree of support for the events which have taken place.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the Welsh people, in overwhelming numbers, deplore these senseless attacks of violence which are doing much harm to the future prosperity of Wales?

I am sure that that expresses the general feeling of the House.

May I ask the right hon. Lady whether she considers that what the House should be concerning itself with this afternoon—tragic though this morning's incident was—is the explosion of admiration and affection which the whole British people have for the young Prince whom Her Majesty is to present to the people of these islands and the Commonwealth?

I think that we all wish to associate ourselves this afternoon with the admiration which has been expressed for the courage and dignity of the young man who is at the centre of all these events.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many acres of derelict land in Wales were acquired by the Land Commission in 1968.

I have been asked to reply.

None, Sir.

While recognising that my right hon. Friend is not an expert on Wales, or yet on dereliction and probably not even on the Land Commission, may I ask whether she would not agree that the Land Commission could play a useful rôle in the acquisition and management of land where there are serious dereliction problems?

Yes. As my hon. Friend will know, I have tried to discover the background to his Question and to his anxiety. I think that he knows, from the correspondence which he has already had with my colleagues, that the Commission has made clear its willingness to help local authorities by acquiring derelict sites and passing them on to the authorities concerned. I should stress, in the light of his correspondence, that there is nothing to prevent amenity projects being grant-earning, so long as their justification includes making the area more attractive for industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales when a settlement will be reached on all outstanding matters relating to the properties known as 41–55 Brynglas Road, Newport, Monmouthshire, which were damaged as a result of tunnelling roadworks.

I have been asked to reply.

Nos. 41–49 Brynglas Road were bought by the contractors and I understand that they are disposing of them. Nos. 51–55 are at present vested in my right hon. Friend's Department, but are being sold. My right hon. Friend is proceeding as quickly as possible with the legal formalities, but is unable at present to forecast precise dates when the transactions will be completed.

Will my right hon. Friend impress upon the Department the urgent need to unravel the legal complications which are preventing a settlement of this matter? Will she remember that these houses are an eyesore, that they are devaluing property, frequented by vagrants and infested by rats, and that there is an urgent need to clear the site?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take careful note of those points.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the value of Great Britain's total earnings of foreign exchange in 1968 and the proportion represented by invisible earnings.

Excluding credits on capital account, about £9,800 million, of which 36 per cent. were invisible earnings.

In view of those figures, has not the time come for the Government to reconsider fundamentally their policy of discriminating against the service industries in the tax structure and in relation to investment incentives?

One does not discriminate against any section of the economy or of the people. The hon. Gentleman will know that the tax structure is one of the matters which a Committee is considering.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what detailed studies the permanent Committee on Invisible Exports has undertaken in following up the conclusions of the Bland Committee Report; and if he will make a statement.

The Committee's first Annual Report contains details of a number of studies which are completed or in hand, and, where appropriate discussions are in progress with the Departments concerned. I welcome the Committee's examination of ways in which our invisible export performance can be further improved.

The right hon. Gentleman is clearly aware that that Committee is currently investigating the effect of the tax structure on invisible exporters. When does he expect this study to be concluded, and will it be published?

I expect it to be concluded during this year. Whether it will be published or not is a matter for the Committee.

Does not S.E.T., by its very nature, discriminate against invisible exports?

S.E.T. does not discriminate against anything.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the recommendation of the Chairman in the 1968–69 Annual Report of the Committee on Invisible Exports that the Central Statistical Office should show clearly gross payments and receipts and net balances for Government transations on the one hand, and private invisible earnings on the other, in all summary tables produced; and what action he proposes to take.

I have nothing at present to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) on 11th June.—[Vol. 274. c. 265.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that I raised this matter as long ago as last February, when I was given a negative reply by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that since that date this country's invisible earnings and the outflow of private capital have been misrepresented in the official accounts?

I do not think that I could accept the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I recognise, in answer to the earlier part, his great concern with this matter. I assure him that the Government are concerned as well and that the matter is being fully examined.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the figures, just published, for the first quarter of 1969 show that Government expenditure overseas is running at one of the highest ever rates? Will he look into this and make sure that we are doing everything possible to bring it down?

Yes, Sir, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that one reason for the increase in that quarter was the large increase in aid payments.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the effect of the tax structure on invisible earnings; and what conclusions he has reached.

This is a matter on which my right hon. Friend is always willing to consider specific suggestions, and, where possible, he has taken steps to help.

As S.E.T. was justified on the ground that it would help exports, is this not a rather negative tax from the point of view of invisibles and is it not high time that a positive tax was arrived at?

It may be established that S.E.T. has helped invisible exports. It is certainly the case that invisibles are doing very well indeed, for which we are most grateful.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he intends to take on the latest Report of the Invisible Exports Committee.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the recent Annual Report of the Invisible Exports Committee.

I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the written replies given to Questions by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Board of Trade on 11th and 12th June respectively.—[Vol. 784, c. 265; Vol. 784, c. 295.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to this report and the strong views expressed in it, particularly the fact, which is brought out in the document, that Government expenditure abroad has risen from £100 million a year to £500 million a year since the early fifties, figures which speak for themselves?

We are, of course, giving the report the most careful and sympathetic consideration. We welcome a good deal of what is said in it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in the past we have seldom, if ever, achieved a surplus on our visible account while the surplus on invisibles has been proportionately larger than it is now? Will he consider introducing a policy of reinforcing success, rather than concentrating so much on the visible side?

Until I heard the last few words of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I thought I would be in complete agreement with everything he was saying. I do not believe that one should concentrate on anything to the exclusion of everything else. I do not see why one should not try to help visible and invisible exports.

The right hon. Gentleman has asked for helpful suggestions, and I will make one. Will he have another look at the operation nowadays of the 25 per cent. levy on the dollar premium, which many people with expert knowledge consider to be operating as a law of diminishing returns from the point of view of holding back new private portfolio investments overseas which could otherwise make a valuable contribution to our balance of payments?

Without undertaking to do anything or even giving the impression that I may do something, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he puts, as he has, a serious suggestion to me and asks me to consider it, I will, of course, be glad to do so.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether under his Regulations money grants made under the Agriculture and Horticulture Act, 1964, Part 11(2) and Statutory Instrument, 1964, No. 963, The Small Horticultural Producers' Business Scheme, are assessed by the Inland Revenue free of income tax, surtax, corporation tax and capital gains duty and are not aggregable with trading profits for taxation purposes.

These grants reimburse a grower for the expenditure on the relevant programme, so that the expenditure taken into account in computing his tax liability is only the net amount, if any.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, whereas toothbrushes are free from purchase tax, toothpaste is subject to purchase tax at 36⅔ per cent., whereas some face cloths are free of purchase tax, other facecloths are subject to purchase tax at 13¾ per cent., and that whereas some soap is free of purchase tax, perfumed soap is subject to purchase tax at 13¾ per cent.; whether he will render all such ablutionary materials free of purchase tax; and whether he will make a statement.

The answer to the first, second and third parts of the Question is "No".

Will the Chancellor take steps to clean up the extraordinarily unsatisfactory position of purchase tax on face cloths, sponges, toothpaste, toothbrushes and soap, varying between 13¾ per cent. and 55 per cent., although all are devoted to human ablution? Would it not be in the interests of cleanliness and hygiene to remove the lot from purchase tax?

The hon. Member's questions would be more telling if they were not based on total misconceptions. For example, face cloths are not tax-free at the moment. He is also totally wrong about soap, whether soft or otherwise. If we exempted all "ablutionary articles", as he called them, the position would be just as anomalous as anything now, and the hon. Gentleman would be the first to denounce it.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise it as soon as possible on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on the results of the recent negotiations with the International Monetary Fund.

I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 23rd and 25th June.—[Vol. 785, c. 1001–1010; Vol. 785, c. 1521–1534.]

While recognising the Chancellor's point in his previous remarks, that he does not intend to publish the quarterly figures of domestic credit expansion, may I ask whether he does not think that the experts will arrive at an approximate quarterly figure? Therefore, would it not be better to reconsider and publish them?

No, Sir. Experts can often reach very divergent figures. I told the House, during that debate—and I think that they were accepted—the reasons why I did not propose to publish the quarterly accounts.

On the narrow question of our relationship with the I.M.F., is our national position in any way less circumscribed than it was when Montague Norman had to advise the British Cabinet in the early 1930s of the terms laid down by J. P. Morgan?

I do not think that Montague Norman had relations with the I.M.F.

Are the terms of the Letter of Intent likely to lead to an increase in unemployment, particularly towards the end of the year? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in areas like Merseyside, unemployment is far too huge, and that, on the basis of the Letter of Intent, it seems that it could go a lot higher?

No, Sir. I see no reason to change my views about the likely course of the domestic economy, and, therefore, about the likely course of employment as a result of the Letter of Intent, from those which I had after the Budget.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the next visit of the International Monetary Fund team to the United Kingdom.

Probably in August.

As we are now a fourth tranche borrower and are at the limit of our credit, would the right hon. Gentleman supplicate the I.M.F. to allow him to publish a White Paper about the results of these visits so that everyone may know what conditions have been attached to our financial survival in the' future?

If I thought that it would be right to publish such a White Paper, I would do so. It has not been thought appropriate in the past to do so; for example, after the quarterly visits which took place last year. I have published more about our relations with the I.M.F. than was previously published.

While I accept the point which my right hon. Friend makes, which we appreciate, may I ask whether he will make it clear to the representatives of the I.M.F. that we are not a banana republic, that we have had just about enough of squeeze and freeze and that we will not tolerate any further high levels of unemployment?

No question of bananas arises and, as far as I can gather, we are not at present a republic. The wider issues raised by my hon. Friend were debated extensively last week. I would not wish to go further into, or take away from, what I said then, which is that I believe it is possible—indeed, this is what we intend to do—to get our balance of payments right on the basis of a healthy economy at home.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will write a supplementary letter to the International Monetary Fund, setting out the economic objectives and policies included in his Budget but not included in his letter to the International Monetary Fund of 22nd May, 1969.

No, Sir.

Surely the Chancellor must change his mind on this? Does he not recall saying in his Budget speech that the Government would publish without delay some of the more important provisions of the White Paper "In Place of Strife", and that this was so because of the occurrence of unnecessary and damaging disputes? Surely it is essential to publish a supplementary letter to the International Monetary Fund without delay.

No. The hon. Gentleman is trying to drag this in rather unconvincingly. This did not at any time play a part in the discussions with the I.M.F.

Will my right hon. Friend clarify the point he made earlier about our having a healthy economic situation without this leading to an increase in unemployment? Will he tell the House clearly that there will not be any further increase in unemployment in the coming months?

No, Sir. Clearly with this index as with others nobody is going to give an exact prediction of what will happen. I am sure that my hon. Friend, if he thinks about it, will agree with that. I see no reason as a result of the Letter to the I.M.F. to change the view about the general progress of the economy during this year which I expressed at the time of the Budget debate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Letters of Intent have been sent to the International Monetary Fund on behalf of Her Majesty's Government since the Fund was established; and on what date each of them was signed.

Seven. The dates are: 28th July, 1961; 19th July, 1962; 9th July, 1963; 8th July, 1964; 27th April, 1965; 23rd November, 1967; 22nd May, 1969.

Is there any reason why they should not all be published?

That question should more appropriately be addressed to right hon. Gentlemen on the hon. Gentleman's own side.

Is the Chancellor aware that I have said myself that I should be delighted for there to be publication?

It is a little late for the right hon. Gentleman to say that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether United Kingdom drawing of future quarterly instalments of the standby credit covered by the latest letter of intent to the International Monetary Fund depends on the Fund's holdings of sterling being below 200 per cent. of the United Kingdom quota; and what estimates he has made of the future level of the Fund's sterling holdings.

The arrangements for drawing future instalments of the standby are designed to ensure that Fund holdings of sterling will remain below 200 per cent. of the United Kingdom's quota. The future level of the Fund's holdings of sterling will depend on our drawings under the new standby and on whether other member countries make drawings in sterling.

If the level of sterling in the Fund is not sufficient to enable the full amount to be drawn at any quarterly period, will we be able to draw only that amount which would bring the balance up to 200 per cent.?

I do not think that this will arise. As I see the position, we shall be able to do the scheduled debt repayments and make the drawings without there being a question of our going above the 200 per cent.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when 3s. was fixed as the limit beyond which luncheon vouchers issued by an employer to his employees would be treated as taxable in the hands of the employee.

In 1948.

In view of the lapse of 21 years, if 3s. was then the right figure, fixed by the then Labour Government, should it not be much higher now?

No, Sir. This can be viewed in a number of ways. In the first place, one has to consider those who have to pay in full for their meals; in the second, it puts those who receive luncheon vouchers in no more advantageous a position than those who enjoy the benefits of a subsidised canteen.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this method of subsidising wages is unnecessary and out of date and that it should be replaced by a more satisfactory wage structure, which would make all these niggling forms of subsidy unnecessary?

This is in some ways anomalous, but it has existed for a long time and its withdrawal would be resented. But I accept that that is a good reason for not extending the system.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the balance of payments outturn for the current calendar year; and at what date he now expects to reach a large payments surplus on an annual basis.

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said in the House on 23rd and 25th June.—[Vol. 785, c. 1001–10; Vol. 785, c. 1521–34.]

Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the polite scepticism expressed by the O.E.C.D. about the Chancellor's latest payments target? Can he tell us, as the Chancellor failed to tell us last week, what will happen if the target is not reached, as seems evident? Will the trigger clause be applied, or is this another instance of the Government's habit of proclaiming the inevitability of the unattainable?

The hon. Gentleman has made a number of points but the essential one was about the so-called "trigger clause". This is non-existent.

But is it not true that what the Chancellor said does not answer my hon. Friend's question, particularly the first part, about the balance of surplus in this calendar year? What is the answer to that?

I have given the answer to that. I cannot add to the information which my right hon. Friend has given: if I could have done, I would have done.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposal he has received for special tax privileges for exporters wishing to invest in and build up overseas sales organisations.

None, Sir.

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman nevertheless accept that it is in building up strong wholesale and distributing organisations in foreign markets that our rivals have had their most striking successes? When he and his colleagues next turn their minds to export incentives, as they presumably will before long, can they provide particular encouragement in this respect?

This is, of course, a very important matter. However, one must have regard to a number of factors. One is the position under our international obligations, such as G.A.T.T. and E.F.T.A. Another is the fact that if there are subsidiaries abroad, they will not pay United Kingdom tax, while if there are branches abroad they receive considerable relief under double taxation agreements.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, on the United Kingdom's becoming a member of the European Economic Community, he intends to introduce the value-added tax system.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements he is making to implement a value-added tax in the United Kingdom in view of the renewed negotiations to enter the Common Market.

The Government's position remains as indicated in the full statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in May, 1967, and in paragraph 44 of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the meeting of the Council of the Western European Union in July, 1967, the text of which was presented to Parliament as Cmnd. 3345.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that informative Answer, may I ask him to be aware that the members of the E.E.C. have agreed to introduce a value-added tax not later than 1970? If Her Majesty's Government are really serious in their attempts to join the Community, will not the achievement of that desire be made more difficult if we, too, are not prepared to go over to a value-added tax system? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore take steps to prepare Britain for the introduction of such a system?

My Answer particularly referred to what the then Foreign Secretary said and covered exactly the supplementary question which the hon. Gentleman has asked.

Would the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he makes another weekend speech of rhetorical questions, to note what the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has said on the subject of the value-added tax system, in particular about it not applying to foodstuffs? Will he also bear in mind that many organisations, including the C.B.I. and N.E.D.C., consider that a value-added tax would be not only fair and sensible but likely to be necessary?

We will see what the N.E.D.C. has to say on this subject when its report is published shortly.

While congratulating the Chancellor on his weekend speech, may I ask the Chief Secretary to say how much choice we would have about introducing a value-added tax if we were to join the Community?

I have referred to the very full statements which were made with the authority of the Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As I said, they covered all these points completely. I hope that my hon. Friend will refer to them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet considered the representations made to him by the General Council of the Bar requesting amendment of Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1956, relating to the nature and amount of relief for qualifying premiums in order to bring the relevant statutory provisions into line with the increase in the cost of living since 1956; and what reply he has sent.

I have written to my hon. and learned Friend explaining that I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said when this matter was discussed in Committee on the Finance Bill.

Does my hon. Friend realise that it is a pity that he cannot add to that Answer, since Section 23 as it stands is inflicting great hardship and injustice on an important element of the administration of justice in this country? Will he consult the Attorney-General with a view to rectifying this position?

There are two answers to my hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question. The first is that a general review of the taxation treatment of superannuation arrangements is going on; and the matter which he has raised should obviously be dealt with in that context. The second is that, while there is some hardship, it is, on the whole, affecting those earning more than £7,500 a year.

Has the Minister really got his heart in the right place in dealing with this matter? Does he genuinely believe that it is a good thing to encourage private provision for old age, or does he believe it to be something which runs counter to his Socialist philosophy? If he believes in it, will he back up his beliefs by some action?

If the hon. Gentleman had read the reply of the Financial Secretary in Committee when the Finance Bill was under discussion he would have seen that this issue received sympathetic treatment from my right hon. Friend. This is something which one would like to see helped but one must have regard to priorities, and the first priorities are not necessarily concerned with those who have very high income levels.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's intentions regarding the level of increase of dividends after 1st January, 1970.

I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 21st April.—[Vol. 782, c. 43–5.]

Since that statement said precisely nothing, will the Chief Secretary now tell the House whether it is right that anyone may increase his dividends after the end of this year by any amount he thinks fit, because the powers under which the Chancellor controls them will have expired?

I dealt with that point in my statement. I made clear that there were to be discussions with the C.B.I. and that I would give the House the information as soon as possible and well within the time for companies to make their necessary arrangements.

If the Government are unfortunately to go on with this limiting policy, can they be more broadminded in their suggestions and, instead of going to four decimal points, round the figures off?

I hope that the hon. Member will give me details of any case he has in mind, because when this difficulty has arisen we have met it.

In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what currency or currencies credits received from the Federal German Republic under recycling arrangements will fall to be repaid.

Dollars.

I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving us that most welcome information. Even so, would he not agree that these sort of recycling arrangements provide no solution to the continuing problem of the German surplus and that to some extent they make it easier for the Germans to manage a perpetuating surplus on this scale?

I think I have answered the main point the hon. Member has in mind, and he was gracious enough to acknowledge that. As to the wider point, I certainly would not regard recycling arrangements as the answer to all problems of international currency alignment, but I think they are desirable in order to neutralise speculative flows which occur from time to time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he proposes to have with the Bank for International Settlements in view of the present short-term overseas indebtedness of the United Kingdom Government.

None, Sir.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the annual report of the Bank for International Settlements in respect of this country talked about "a tinge of anarchy" in our labour relations? Is he aware that that description is both a travesty and an impertinence? Will he take the earliest opportunity to make representations of the sort I have indicated to either the President or General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements?

That report was an expression of view—it is in no sense an imposition of burdens—and as such I do not think it calls for any international action.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the further representations made to him that research studies should be set up to consider the disincentive effects of taxation.

I have nothing to add to my long letter to my hon. Friend of 29th April and the Chancellor's comments in the Finance Bill debate on 13th May.—[Vol. 783, c. 1272–3.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since then there has been brought to my notice a very large amount of exploratory work being taken on at certain universities? Does he not consider that it is time the Government paralleled that work in the universities with some research efforts of their own?

As I explained in my letter and my right hon. Friend explained in his speech, we did not think we could usefully take on further work at the present time.

Does the Chief Secretary recall that studies into the disincentive effect of taxes on service industries were made by the Bland Committee and published in 1967? The Government have done nothing about them? Why not?

Those were recommendations made to the subsequent committee examining these very things.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the plan submitted to him by the accountants' organisations for streamlining the tax system; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer discussed this recently with representatives of the accountancy bodies and has agreed that the Inland Revenue should consider with them the procedure for consultation on this subject.

Surely the Chancellor would not say that this is good enough? Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we have the most complicated and obscure mass of tax laws on personal taxation of any country in the world? Would he not agree that the first thing which is needed is a simplification of the personal taxation system? Will he bear in mind that in America, where there are three times the number of taxpayers, only the same number of tax gatherers are employed as we have in the Inland Revenue?

Of course simplification would be in many ways desirable, but it is not always realised that simplification might run counter to equity, and many Chancellors, including those who have come from the benches opposite, have found in the past that their desires for simplification have not proved quite as easy in practice as they had hoped. Discussions with accountancy bodies on an informal basis would be the best way of proceeding and I hope that when the discussions take place—they are to start this week—they will produce good results.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the amount of overtime worked by the Inland Revenue and that the bill for overtime is an unproductive addition to the bill the taxpayer has to meet?

The alternative to overtime would be to take on extra civil servants, which is something that hon. Members opposite are loth to accept. Of course one is very well aware of the arguments produced by hon. Members opposite who want less taxation but more public expenditure.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in implementing the new savings schemes outlined in the Budget.

Good progress is being maintained by the Department for National Savings in its administrative planning for S.A.Y.E., by the Trustee Savings Banks for their parallel scheme and by the Building Societies Association who have agreed in principle to operate a scheme corresponding in all major purposes to S.A.Y.E. The target date for all these schemes is October next.

Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman genuinely alarmed at the fact that for the first 12 weeks of the current financial year withdrawals exceeded new savings by at least £1 million a day? Will he press ahead with the new scheme to attract to the National Savings movement?

Of course we seek to press ahead but this scheme will be ready by 1st October and, contrasted with the Premium Bonds scheme which took 14 months to come into operation, that seems a reasonable time.

Does my hon. and learned Friend consider that it might be necessary to increase the rate of interest in view of the level of interest rates and the way they have been going since the first announcement?

No, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange an early meeting with M. Giscard d'Estaing.

My right hon. Friend is looking forward to meeting M. Giscard d'Estaing when a suitable occasion arises. It is as yet too early to say when this might be.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that constructive and helpful reply. When this meeting takes place, will the Chancellor place high on the agenda the question of the current international monetary system and see if it is possible for Britain and France to devise a common approach to these problems? Will he also examine with his French opposite number the possibility of moving towards some form of common European currency?

Of course all these considerations will be very much in my right hon. Friend's mind when in due course they meet.

Will the Chancellor at this meeting make clear to the French Minister that the calculations that we would have to pay across the exchanges to the common agricultural pool under the new scheme for agriculture they are now working out are estimated fairly objectively to be of the order of £700 million and that is something which this country cannot afford? Will he discuss this with the French Minister?

I cannot anticipate the exact form the discussions will take. This matter is very much in the mind of the Government and one has to wait to see how the common agricultural policy works out.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to include local authority borrowing within the categories of those towards whom banks are to exercise credit restraint.

As my right hon. Friend said in his Budget speech, he attaches the greatest importance to restraint in the provision of bank credit both to the public and private sectors. The London Clearing and Scottish Banks were asked in May, 1968, to ensure that their lending to local authorities returned to more normal levels—that is broadly the levels outstanding at November, 1967. These banks are aware that they should endeavour to see that their lending to local authorities does not rise appreciably above this level.

Could the Chief Secretary tell us whether the large sums the local authorities have borrowed or may borrow from the banks are included in his residual negative public sector borrowing requirement of £300 million, that is to say, are they already taken into account for the D.C.E. calculation? Would it not be more satisfactory if the Government used some of their very large central Government negative borrowing requirements to help local authorities instead of putting them into the banks?

To the extent that local authorities borrow from banks the answer would be "Yes". To the extent that they borrow from the non-banking sector this would not arise and would not be part of the domestic credit expansion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now take further fiscal and monetary measures to encourage reversal of the recent downward revisions of business investment expectations.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's speech in the debate on the Letter of Intent on 25th June. He said then that he expected a good increase in private investment during the year ahead broadly in line with that forecast at the time of the Budget.

Was either the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor expecting the downward revision in investment intentions either at the time of the Budget or when the Chief Secretary spoke in Committee on the Finance Bill at the beginning of its proceedings?

At the time of his Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took into account the variations he expected to arise from current policy changes.

In view of the importance of manufacturing investment, if it appears to the Chancellor that because of liquidity problems there is a downturn against his forecast, would he consider at that stage possibly bringing forward payment of investment grants to help the companies that we need to help in this sphere?

I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about this point. Indeed, we are all concerned that investment should be maintained and not drop through lack of financial resources. Both my right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that we do not see any such likelihood.

Why apparently was the Chief Secretary unaware of the Board of Trade's published survey on this subject when he took part in the debates in Standing Committee on the Finance Bill?

I was not unaware of the figures underlying both the Board of Trade figures and other figures which we have published.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures showing domestic credit expansion as a whole, and of the central Government borrowing requirement within it, at quarterly intervals.

Yes, Sir. These figures will be provided, along with figures for the money supply, in the usual official publications.

Will they be provided at regular quarterly intervals in the same way as they will be provided to the International Monetary Fund? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise how essential it is that these figures should be so provided, as it was the activities of the Government Broker that were largely responsible for the large increase in the money supply last year? Will he now say what the rôle of the Government Broker is after the Letter to the I.M.F.?

The figures will be provided as soon as they are firm enough. A number of factors determine when they can be published. First, it takes some time for the figures to become available. Secondly, when it comes to the question of sales of Government debt there must be a suitable interval of 10 weeks or so, as has been recognised in the past, otherwise market operations might he prejudiced. The figures will be published as soon as they are firm and as soon as it is reasonable for them to be published.