asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions he gave to Treasury officials appearing before the Wilberforce Committee; and whether he will make a statement.

Their instructions were to give the Court of Inquiry the assistance which had previously been requested by the Court.

Will my right hon. Friend observe that the outcome of his instructions to his Treasury officials was an award variously assessed between 10·9 per cent. and 16 per cent., all of which is highly inflationary? If the award is taken as a norm to be spread over the whole field of wage and salary demands, will not the effects on inflation be utterly catastrophic?

It is quite clear from the report and recommendations of the Court of Inquiry that the proposals it put forward were not to be taken as representing a norm. The actual figures were that the electricity workers claimed 25 per cent., the employers offered 9·7 per cent. and the relevant figure for the proposals of the court of inquiry was 10·9 per cent.

Was it not inevitable, because of the nature of the inquiry, that civil servants would be subjected to political questioning? Was it not intolerable that they should have to answer such questions, and is it not quite wrong for Ministers to hide behind the skirts of their civil servants?

I have already explained on a previous occasion that this procedure was not new but was something which had been done before. I reacted to a request which had been made by the secretary of the court in a letter addressed to the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. Furthermore, the Court of Inquiry paid tribute to the officials who gave evidence.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was with his authority that the Permanent Under-Secretary to the Treasury, in giving evidence to the Wilberforce public inquiry about wage bargaining in industry, stated that it was dangerous for claimants to build in factors for an expected increase in prices.

I fully endorse what the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury said to the Court.

Is the Chancellor aware that the Conservative chairman of the London Borough of Camden's housing committee recently said that if three or seven year leases are to be offered to council tenants the rents charged will have to be high enough to cover inflation during the term of the lease? In view of the obvious contradiction between that statement and the one given to the Wilberforce Inquiry, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will now make a statement on what is the Government's policy?

It is clear from the report of the Court of Inquiry that the Court accepted that if everyone tried to cover himself against expected future price increases, this process would push up prices to a higher level than would otherwise be the case.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the original Question put by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) is a clear indication that he and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are openly inviting increases in prices through increased wages?

I certainly agree with what I think my hon. Friend is getting at—namely, that the Question is wholly misguided.

In view of what my hon. Friend said in his supplementary question, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to get in touch with Camden Borough Council and any other authority which seeks to impose factors in contemplation of further inflation in any prices over which they have any control?

It would be much more appropriate if the hon. Gentleman concerned put down a Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum he is expecting to collect in surtax during the year 1970–71; and how this is divided between surtax revenue derived, respectively, from earned and unearned incomes.

The Budget estimate was £277 million. I cannot divide this between earned and investment income because surtax is charged on the total of a mixed income and not on its separate parts.

Will my right hon. Friend take early steps to rectify the blunders of an earlier Chancellor of the Exchequer who introduced this invidious distinction between earned and so-called unearned income, and will not my hon. Friend observe that so-called unearned income is the due dividend to persons who have devoted a lifetime to the practice of economy, thrift and honest investment?

The views of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) on this subject are, of course, well known, and I have taken a careful note of them.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) explain to us what the end of the Question, as printed, means?

I cannot, but I do not suppose it matters now.

On a point of order. Did I hear you say that it does not matter, Mr. Speaker?

The hon. Gentleman made that clear by asking a pellucidly clear supplementary question after the Minister's reply.

It is a typographical error, two lines having been transposed. It is the printers' fault and not mine.

Nobody suggested that it was the hon. Member's fault.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister of State not agree that if surtax were abolished altogether the result would be an increase in the yield of revenue to the Exchequer?

My hon. Friend's point would raise far wider questions than those raised in the original Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield from income tax collected on wages and salaries in the fiscal year 1969–70, and the yield in the same year from income tax collected from interest and dividend payments.

About £3,400 million was collected on salaries, wages and occupational pensions. The answer to the second part of the Question is £723 million.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those figures. Do they not contribute to the ensemble of arguments against the irrational and anachronistic distinction between income tax on earned and so-called unearned income? Does not he agree that, far from there being disapprobation, there would be widespread approval for the abolition of this peculiar distinction?

As I assured my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), my right hon. Friend will bear in mind this point in his considerations before the Budget.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has completed his consideration of the proposition to retain the capital sum of estate duty paid in trust for the surviving spouse and for dependent children still in receipt of full-time education; and if he will make a statement.

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

Would my right hon. and hon. Friends agree that to hit a woman at the point of bereavement suggests a heartless society, and, since married couples are taxed as one in life, should they not be taxed as one in death?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's views, but I am sure he will appreciate that I cannot say more at this time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide for severely disabled people to obtain repayment of their post-war credits.

Some people who are 100 per cent. disabled can claim now; I have every sympathy with the intention behind this Questtion but we have no proposals for extending the qualifying categories.

Is the Minister aware that although the severely disabled have sufficient sympathy, what they need is cash? Is he also aware that I personally believe that people who are 50 per cent. disabled should receive repayment? Therefore, is the Min0ister prepared to meet me halfway and consider giving repayment to those who are 75 per cent. disabled?

The difficulty here is not the degree of disability but the question of drawing a line, I will certainly look into what the hon. Gentleman has suggested. It would be extremely difficult once one relaxed the 100 per cent. requirement to define a line below it.

Since part of this problem is one of definition could not the Government give a definition of what is meant by "severely disabled"?

There is a great problem of definition here, but it extends greatly beyond the whole question of repayment of post-war credits.

Will the hon. Gentleman look as sympathetically as possible into the suggestiton made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley)? Is he aware that some people are much too severely disabled to qualify for disabled persons' vehicles and that they are persons for whom the repayment of post-war credits could be extremely helpful in increasing their mobility?

The hon. Gentleman is introducing a new criterion, which I will certainly look at.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the rate of growth in the money supply in the current financial year.

I do not think it would be appropriate to give forecasts of the money supply at various points during the course of the year.

My right hon. Friend has said that he intends to ensure that the growth of the money supply shall be restricted to something less than the going rate of inflation. Would it not facilitate the achievement of this essential object of economic strategy if, at any rate for the time being, the upper parity limit for sterling were suspended?

No. I have dealt with this matter before and have explained that I do not think it would be appropriate. I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about forecasts, but for the reasons I have mentioned I do not think it would be appropriate to give these.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to the Revenue in a full year of a reduction of 6d. and 1s., respectively, in the petrol tax.

These reductions on all road fuel would cost about £120 million and £235, respectively.

Could my hon. Friend say whether the Chancellor in framing his Budget proposals will bear in mind that in Scotland management has attributed a number of recent factory closures wholly and exclusively to the virtual doubling by the Labour Government of road taxation and its effect on road transport costs in areas like Scotland? In view of that, would he view sympathetically the fact that a reduction in this tax would be disproportionately to the advantage of Scotland?

I am aware that the previous Administration increased the rate of petrol tax from 2s. 9d. to 4s. 6d. a gallon, and my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the points made by my hon. Friend in the course of reviewing indirect taxation before the Budget.

Would the hon. Gentleman recommend to his right hon. Friend that he should reduce the rate of tax by a shilling in his Budget, in keeping with the false promise of the Prime Minister to deal with prices "at a stroke"?

As I have said, my right hon. Friend will keep the whole of indirect taxation under review before the Budget.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the further growth in unemployment, he will now permit the banks to put loans to housebuilders in their priority lending list.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on 24th November last.—[Vol. 807. c. 56.]

Is not the inability to obtain loans the main reason why 1,300 building firms have crashed in the last 12 months at a time of desperate housing need?

There are many factors which govern building starts, which began to pick up towards the end of last year. I would not like to attribute weight between them.

In view of the fact that the Government have cut down local authority building, is not the only possibility open to people the obtaining of housing through private builders? Will the hon. Gentleman try to ensure that private builders are allowed to remain in business?

There is no particular case for giving a higher priority to builders than to other people in similar difficulties.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the evidence presented by Treasury civil servants to the Wilberforce Committee to the effect that prices will rise by 6½ per cent. in 1971, he will reconsider his decision not to impose a price freeze this year.

No such evidence was presented.

Would the Chancellor not agree that if a measure of price control were introduced this year, it would enable him to negotiate a voluntary element of wage restraint with the unions even at this stage? Would he not agree that this would not have any harmful effects on the economy, and indeed would have positive effects on inflation, on the rate of employment and on growth?

Those remarks go very much wider than the original question, which is about alleged evidence given to the Wilberforce Court of Inquiry. With great respect, the hon. Gentleman should get his facts straight before putting down a Question.

Look who is talking!

It is quite clear that the hon. Gentleman has never even taken the trouble to read the evidence.

Would my right hon. Friend try to get it into the heads of hon. Members opposite that if he were to impose a price freeze at the present time of galloping wage-cost inflation, this would simply remove what has been left of profit margins after the behaviour of the Labour Government, which destroyed all incentive to industrial investment?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Could the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point? There was a report in the Press after this inquiry about a projection of price increases in the next year. Was nothing said about this at all, or was this a pure invention of the reporter concerned in a perfectly reputable paper?

The evidence is in the Library of the House of Commons for hon. Members to read. The hon. and learned Gentleman will see that Sir Donald MacDougall said that he was giving,

"a purely hypothetical example".

"This is, I repeat, a purely hypothetical example. It is not a forecast. It is not a policy."

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount and the proportion by which the purchasing power of the single person's retirement pension has fallen since 1st July, 1970; and by how much it is expected to fall by 1st July, 1971.

The purchasing power of the single rate fell by the equivalent of 18 new pence or 3·5 per cent. between mid-June and mid-December, 1970. It is not usual to publish forecasts of possible changes in the future purchasing power of pensions.

Would not the Minister agree that the considerable increase in prices in recent months are likely to be very much dwarfed by those which are to come? Since the purchasing power of old-age pensions deteriorates daily, does he not agree that the Government should do something urgently?

No, I would not concede the point the hon. Gentleman made. It is not usual to make forecasts of this kind. In regard to the overall position, clearly inflation is a very serious problem for pensioners, and the Government are determined to win the fight against it.

Could I ask the whole of the Treasury Bench, from top to bottom, to remember that there are quite a lot of pledges in the Tory Manifesto, and that my own requirement is that those living on small fixed incomes should have something done for them since the Labour Government so destroyed the standards of these people? Could I be assured that the Treasury Bench as a whole will have a conference to find out what it can do in the Budget, because I shall be watching and listening?

I sympathise with what my hon. Friend said, and she may rest assured that we shall certainly have a conference before the Budget. As for election pledges, I stress that we are determined to fulfil them all. If my hon. Friend will look at the manifesto, she will see that we have already succeeded in fulfilling a considerable number in a short period of time.

Which ones?

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree, in view of the increased cost of living that many elderly people have to face, that his Department should give consideration to the totally unfair system whereby retired women have to continue to pay prescription charges up to the age of 65? This costs a great deal of money to many people and it is totally unfair. Is he aware that a measure to deal with this would be warmly welcomed on this side of the House?

This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Social Services, but it depends on circumstances in individual cases.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of the publication, "Your Guide to Decimal Money", have been put into circulation; what period was required for their printing; and on which date the text was approved.

I am informed by the Decimal Currency Board that it estimates that approximately 15 million copies of the booklet were distributed to households before the postal strike. The remainder of the Question is a matter for the Board, and I understand that the Chairman is writing to my hon. Friend.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it was at least unfortunate and perhaps irregular that the Decimal Currency Board should have assumed, in framing paragraph 30 of the booklet, that the Post Office charges were going to be acceded to for 1st January, when this was not the commitment of the Government and the matter was still before the Users' Council?

This is a matter for the Board, and I will ensure that the point is drawn to the Chairman's attention.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect he estimates his taxation and monetary measures will have on industrial investment in 1971 and 1972.

It is not possible to make a precise estimate. The Government's economic policies as a whole are designed to help create a climate favourable to investment.

Would it not be true to say that the Government's economic policies as a whole are having disastrous effects on industrial investment, as the figures from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry show? In view of the serious consequences for the years ahead, have the Government still no intention of changing their policies?

The latest survey of investment intentions shows that firms expect a small fall between 1970 and 1971 and no great change between 1971 and 1972. So the investment position is by no means satisfactory. In so far as it is exacerbated by shortage of cash, my right hon. Friend's reduction of corporation tax and other changes have helped. But, as the Treasury Memorandum to the recent Court of Inquiry made clear, one of the most adverse effects on investment is caused by the shortage and narrowing of profit margins, and this again is very much the Government's concern.

Is it not extraordinary that the Opposition should dare to put down a Question on the effects of taxation on industrial investment, since they increased the rate of corporation tax from 35 per cent. to 45 per cent., whereas the first action of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to reduce the level?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. One of the difficulties has been the increasing rate of taxation of profits under the previous Government.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree—I am sure he must—that many factors other than taxation bear upon the level of investment? Could he tell us when the survey of investment intentions last showed a fall?

I have not got that information. Indeed, it is another question. Among other factors which affect investment is the rate of inflation, which is increased by the extremely inflationary wage demands which have come about, particularly since the controls were abandoned by the right hon. Gentleman just before the General Election.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the balance of payments out-turn for the first quarter of 1971.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the balance of payments out-turn for the United Kingdom for 1970 and the estimated out-turn for the financial year 1970–71.

I expect a current surplus of about £600 million for 1970, and perhaps more. Detailed estimates of the balance of payments for last year and for the first quarter of 1971 will be published in March and June respectively.

Since the balance of payments surplus is running at a level very much higher than expected by the Government, why is the right hon. Gentleman operating so restrictive an economic policy? In particular, why is he permitting records levels of unemployment and bankruptcies, the lowest level of industrial investment and a high level of inflation, all at the same time? Are these achievements of which he can be proud?

The first necessity if we are to get these things right is to curb the present level of inflation. I am sure that the House agrees on that. The steps we are taking are designed to achieve that objective.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the curbing of the existing rate of inflation could go hand in hand with a faster deliberate policy of increasing real resources, bearing in mind that the balance of payments would help towards that end?

The first necessity if we are to get an adequate rate of growth—which has been the aim of all Governments over the years but they have not been successful in achieving it—is to curb the present rate of cost inflation.

Bearing in mind the balance of payments surplus, will the right hon. Gentleman take cognisance of the point of view of the T.U.C. that we should have an expansionist policy? Is he aware that the next figures for Scotland will show 125,000 people unemployed? Is he not prepared to do something about it before it is too late?

One of the reasons for the present high level of unemployment is without doubt the present high level of wage demands and wage settlements. There is no doubt about that. Sometimes I think that those trade union leaders who put in claims for excessive increases do not appreciate that by doing so they are causing unemployment among their own members.

In view of the encouraging figures my right hon. Friend has given, what progress does he expect to make this year in the repayment of overseas debt, the legacy which the last Government left us, of over £1,500 million?

One of the reasons why we have to have a high level of surplus on our current account is this very heavy load of short and medium term debt to repay—a debt left to us by our predecessors.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what, if any, is the amount of short-term debt outstanding?

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, since the third quarter, published repayments for short and medium-term debt have totalled £156 million.

Is there any short-term debt outstanding?

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these figures will be published at the normal time. [Interruption.] He also knows perfectly well that we are following the practice followed by the last Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total net amount of revenue collected in each year from selective employment tax; and what estimate he has made of the reduction in prices consequent on the proposed abolition of the tax in April.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of price reductions following the proposed abolition of selective employment tax.

The net yield from S.E.T. from its introduction has been: 1966–67, £303 million; 1967–68, £325 million; 1968–69, £438 million; 1969–70. £527 million. The price effects of abolishing S.E.T. will depend on a number of variable factors. I have no statement to make on timing.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister had a statement to make on this matter on 16th June last when he told Mr. Alastair Burnet in a T.V. interview that it was the Government's intention to introduce in their first Budget a package deal specifically dealing with the reduction of direct taxation and the abolition of S.E.T.? This commitment was made on 16th June. Why cannot we have a degree of honest government for a change?

In so far as the hon. Gentleman's supplementary has any point at all, it is asking me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget in a way which he knows perfectly well I cannot do.

Will the Minister assure the House that if there are to be any hypothetical price reductions as a result of the abolition of S.E.T. they will not be taken "at a stroke"?

The abolition of selective employment tax reduces one element of labour costs. It has no effect on other elements, such as inflationary wage increases. The price effects of a reduction in selective employment tax. therefore, could easily be overshadowed by cost inflation.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many hon. Members on this side of the House are extremely anxious about the abolition of this tax put on by the previous Government because there is a real connection between it and the rocketing of prices?

Yes. My hon. Friend has made it quite clear that this Govern- ment have promised to take off selective employment tax——

When?

and will do so.

When?

To ask "When?" at this stage is to invite the only answer which any Treasury Minister can give to such a question: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he does not intend to publish the results of his studies of the proposals for economic and monetary union put forward by the European Economic Community Commission, when these studies have been completed.

It has never been the practice of this, or any other, Government to publish the official advice which Ministers have before them when reaching their conclusions on matters of this kind.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread concern, both in this House and in the country, about the implications of these revolutionary proposals for economic and monetary union, particularly for parliamentary control of taxation? Why, therefore, on an issue of this magnitude and importance should the Treasury keep this advice secret?

The Question refers to the proposals of the European Economic Commission. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, those proposals have now been overtaken by the agreement reached by the Six at their meeting on 8th and 9th of this month. As I have already said elsewhere, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Six on that occasion.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Six have arranged a programme for their proposals stretching over 10 years and that if we have the opportunity of joining the Common Market in the next three years we shall be able to play an important part in the development of those proposals?

My hon. Friend is quite right. I see no serious problems for the United Kingdom under the first stage proposals which have been agreed. Thereafter, if we are able to archieve acceptable conditions for entry we shall play a major part in the future of the Community.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on sterling of British entry into the European Economic Community.

The Government believe that entry into the European Economic Community on acceptable terms will be economically beneficial and, therefore, favourable to sterling.

Would the Chancellor agree that constant exchange rates between different currencies are essential in any customs union and, therefore, in any common market which provides for the free flow of capital between the various countries involved?

Nothing in the rules of the Community as far as that is concerned is inconsistent with the rules of the I.M.F.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to propose a wealth tax in the forthcoming Budget.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman use his undoubted influence with his right hon. Friend to put this forward as a serious proposition for the Budget, not only as a revenue raiser but as a means of ensuring the essential pre-conditions for a socially just prices and incomes policy?

I am not sure whether my transmission of the hon. Gentleman's recommendation, coming from the source that it does, would necessarily carry much weight with my right hon. Friend.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the introduction of a highly complex new tax in the forthcoming Budget would finally almost certainly break the back of the Inland Revenue?

I think perhaps that a characteristic of some of the suggestions put forward in these matters has been to ignore the extent to which they increase the work load particularly of the Inland Revenue.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to have an official meeting with the Governor of the Bank of England.

Soon.

I am glad to hear that. May I ask whether, when the Chancellor next has a meeting with the Governor, we may expect some relief from having to suffer under the highest system of interest rates in the industrialised world, which is leading us, despite the right hon. Gentleman's election pledges, to three consequences, all of them unfavourable: a drop in investment, an increase in the bankruptcy rate, and an inflow of hot money?

The meetings which I have with the Governor of the Bank of England are, of course, private. I have no doubt that the Governor of the Bank of England will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action is taken by Her Majesty's Government to alert investors in the obligations of public boards and other securities in the narrow range for trustee investments that any particular public authority is making losses not guaranteed by Her Majesty's Government; and what action is taken by Her Majesty's Government, when such public authority partially or wholly defaults, as to announcing the eligibility or not for buying or retaining its obligations outside or inside the narrow range by trustees limited by the Trustee Act.

A trustee dependent on the general law for his trust powers is responsible for managing his trust's investments in accordance with the relevant Acts. It would be wrong for the Government to assume the responsibilities which my hon. Friend suggests.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the partial default by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is the first by a public board, at least in this century? Despite there being four Government members on the board, no bond-holder received the accounts and was, therefore, aware that the board was getting into financial difficulties. May this not be happening with other public boards?

The status of a public trustee company or the fact that a security has trustee status has never implied any kind of Government guarantee or, indeed, that it is a perfectly safe investment. The rules are exactly the same. This particular type of investment is open to trustees in the narrower range fund with advice. It is up to the advisers of investors to guide them in their investments.

In view of the serious effect on local government investment generally and on other bonds, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision to refuse to intervene and to change the callous decision to allow thousands of small investors to carry this burden?

What the hon. Gentleman suggests is that the Government should guarantee every form of public investment, including local authority investment. This has never been the position of any Government. This Government do not propose to take it up.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage the gross trading profits of companies have risen between 1964 and 1970 and, in the same period, income from employment.

Between 1964 and the first three quarters of 1970 the level of the gross trading profits of companies (adjusted for nationalisation) increased by 11 per cent. and that of income from employment by 52 per cent.

Does this not confirm that the narrowing of profit margins has had very adverse effects upon investment and, therefore, on our growth rate?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the figures underline how far the rate of growth of wages and salaries has outstripped the growth of company profits in recent years. During the past year there has been a narrowing of profit margins because prices have recently been substantially less than earnings, which constitute a major part of companies costs. I also agree with him that this is a very worrying trend with important implications for future growth and for the sustainable growth of real income.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm, therefore, that it is the Government's policy to encourage and maximise the growth of profits and, therefore, to do nothing whatever about price increases? What effect does he think this will have on wage negotiations?

The hon. Gentleman has got it exactly upside down. It is quite clear from our policy that we believe the important thing is to have a de-escalation of wage settlements, which will in turn have an effect on prices, tending to reduce them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to modify the scheme for investment incentives to allow the balance after the initial allowance of 60 per cent. to be written off on a straight line rather than reducing balance basis.

No: this would be contrary to my right hon. Friend's intention of simplifying capital allowances.

Could I press the Minister to look at this again before the publication of the Finance Bill since industry will find it much easier to write off the balance of 40 per cent. in equal annual instalments rather than in indeterminable amounts over an indeterminable number of years?

The straight line method appears to be the simpler but it is more complicated in the end. Certainly only a small proportion of the traders actually elect for that system as opposed to the other. I will certainly look at what my hon. Friend says.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for the integration of personal taxation data with information stored in other Government-owned databanks.

None, Sir.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of what is going on in his own Department. Is he aware that the Civil Service Department says that there are such proposals? Are these to be the first steps towards the creation of a centralised Government transaction centre?

No. I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the overwhelming administrative advantages in the integration of the income tax system with National Insurance?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's views on this subject but I think that that is a different question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation to prohibit the placing of advertisements in public places which recommend the avoidance of income tax, surtax or estate duty in a manner designed to circumvent the intention of Parliament.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister not regard what is, in effect, the connivance of public advertisements, blatantly encouraging the circumvention of estate duty liability, as being inconsistent with the traditional hostility of the Conservative Party to the scrounger who is by definition circumventing his obligations to the community? Is this not yet a further instance of the class bias of the Conservative Party inasmuch as tax avoidance by the rich is condoned as a wife hus- banding of assets, while obtaining extra benefits——

Too long.

and getting extra income to assist low income families is regarded as fraudulent and as an action liable to prosecution? Is this not a case of one law for the rich and one law for the poor, except that in this case if someone cheats the State in a small way, then he is a socially disreputable malingerer?

I do not agree with the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman. Tax evasion is dealt with by legislation.