I beg to move,

That the Amendment to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:—

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet decided if he can make an estimate of the total loss to the gross national product for 1972 that has resulted from the miners strike; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect of the coal dispute on his forecasts for investment and economic growth in 1972.

No firm estimate can be made until we know how quickly full coal production can be restored.

Is not this an extraordinary state of affairs? Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling us that the Government at no time made any calculation in the national interest, and in the face of the first miners' strike for 30 years, of what the cost of the strike would be to the country?

I think that the hon. Gentleman misheard my answer. He asked whether I could make an estimate of the total loss to the gross national product for 1972 that has resulted from the miners' strike. My answer is that until we know how quickly full coal production can be restored we cannot make an estimate.

Given the shattering of the Government's economic policy—especially on prices and incomes—and the widespread industrial dislocation consequent upon the miners' dispute, can the right hon. Gentleman maintain that the same confidence can still be entertained in industrial circles about the right hon. Gentleman's own target figure for growth and their own intentions for investment?

If the lost industrial output is made good fairly quickly the forecast growth in the gross national product may be still achieved. The fact is that we cannot be sure as yet.

In view of the fact that in Europe about 60 per cent. of primary fuel derives from sources other than coal, is not it the case that, if we were not so old-fashioned, these problems would not arise?

My hon. Friend has made his point. It is a somewhat wider one than is covered by this Question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) mean that before starting this catastrophic confrontation he made no estimate of the likely loss to the nation resulting from this sort of confrontation?

An absolutely ridiculous supplementary.

My answer means precisely what I said. I think that it is crystal clear. Until we know the facts that I set out it is not possible to make anything like an accurate estimate. A variety of consequences follow from the miners' strike. There is little doubt that the strike has made the unemployment situation worse, without estimating the effect on the gross national product. When I say that, I am not talking simply about those temporarily stopped. I am afraid that this also is a part of the price which has to be paid for the strike.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the major consequences is the permanent loss of a part of the former market for coal on account of greatly increased prices for coal and the miners working themselves out of their jobs?

I was not referring to the settlement; I was referring to the strike. Certainly the strike will not have done the miners very much good in that respect.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the current rate of investment in the United Kingdom by British industrialists, he will facilitate a further increase in the investment programmes of the nationalised industries.

Since my right hon. Friend's statement on 23rd November, arrangements have been agreed with the nationalised industries almost doubling the £100 million figure he then gave the House. Thus, investment projects totalling around £200 million have been brought forward to the period up to 1973–74.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that the present level of investment in the United Kingdom is appallingly low and that the measures which have been taken to encourage private investment have been disappointingly ineffective? Does he agree that there is scope for a further increase in the investment programmes of the nationalised industries and that this would not only help to reduce the dismal rate of unemployment but could, for example, in the steel industry, make a positive contribution to our balance of payments?

The hon. Gentleman is taking too little account of how much has already been done to stimulate growth and investment. I refer to £1,400 million off taxation, £110 million of post-war credits to be repaid this year, and £850 million of expenditure of one sort or another in the regions and elsewhere. This represents a formidable total.

Is not one of the real barriers to investment the fear on the part of investors that at some time in future the Government will prefer to maintain the external parity of sterling rather than our domestic rate of growth? Will my hon. Friend make clear that this is the reverse of the truth?

The point which my hon. Friend has made has already been put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot add to anything which he has already said on this subject.

In view of the unused resources in heavy electrical engineering and the consequent unemployment in that industry, will the Financial Secretary tell us when the Vinter Committee will report so that the industry can be given some jobs to get on with?

The right hon. Gentleman's question is not for me. I should remind him that part of the measures announced by my right hon. Friend was the acceleration of the new power station at Ince, Cheshire, which will bring valuable jobs to the heavy electrical engineering industry.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the tax threshold as a percentage of average earnings for a married man with two children under 11 years of age in 1963–64, 1970–71 and 1972–73.

For 1963–64 and 1970–71 the percentages were 82·1 and 54·4 per cent. respectively. The figures take account of the family allowance and, in the later year, of clawback. I cannot, of course, give figures for 1972–73.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and assure him that the last figure is a misprint. I was not seeking to lure him into revealing any of his right hon. Friend's Budget secrets.

I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's struggle with the printers. However, my answer shows that millions of ordinary working people earning below average wages who were not paying tax at all in 1964 were, by 1970—after six years of Labour Government—paying tax at the standard rate. My right hon. Friend's Budget last year has begun to reverse the trend.

At a time when record unemployment urgently calls for considerable tax relief and the marginal rate of taxation—which affects the amount of earnings which one keeps in one's pocket—is much higher at the bottom of the income scale that at the top, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to convey to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need to give far higher priority to raising the threshold than to giving tax relief to those in the top income bracket?

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) at least assured me that he was not attempting to exact Budget secrets. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not attempt to do so either.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the yield of income tax in the year 1971–72.

The Budget estimate was £6,491 million.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the first eight months of this financial year, according to figures published by the Treasury, the yield of income tax has gone up by 12 per cent., compared with an increase in incomes of about 8 per cent., which means that income tax is taking a greater proportion of earned incomes as the months go by? Will he bear this in mind over the next fortnight with a view to reducing the yield of income tax, either by an adjustment of the standard rate or, as I would prefer, an adjustment of the allowances?

An estimate of the out-turn for the same year—1971–72—will be published in the Financial Statement and the Budget Report. As my hon. Friend knows, it is not the practice to publish revisions of the Budget estimate. I had better merely say that I have noted what he has said. Any further observations from me would be inappropriate, if not imprudent, at this time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average pre-tax personal income for the latest available period in the United Kingdom, South-East and North-East England. respectively.

The following average incomes per head for 1969–70 are produced by dividing the incomes for income tax purposes by the population.

Does the Financial Secretary agree that these figures show a serious disparity between the standard of living in the North-East development area and the more prosperous regions of the country? Does he also accept that that disparity is steadily getting worse and forms a serious indictment of present development area policies?

I certainly do not accept the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. The disparity has existed for many years. The Government's aim is to encourage development in the development areas where, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, special tax incentives are available.

With respect, the words I used were, "that disparity is steadily getting worse".

How does the hon. Gentleman equate these figures with the oft-repeated statement by the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government that high wage claims create unemployment when apparently unemployment is highest in the North-East where incomes are lowest?

There are a number of cases where inflationary wage claims and settlements——

Where?

I refer to the Chrysler Company, in particular. There are a number of cases where inflationary wage claims and settlements have led directly to the loss of workers in the industry. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for unemployment— [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—the Secretary of State for Employment has made clear on many occasions, it is not necessarily the people who get the inflationary wage claims who lose their jobs; it is their less fortunate colleagues in other industries.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the distinction among income groups of the relative gains or losses from all the Government's financial measures since June. 1970.

It is not possible to provide estimates of the kind for which the hon. Member asks.

Is the Minister aware that skilled workers have suffered a net loss from the Government's fiscal and welfare measures so far, while those with incomes of over £5,000 a year have made a net annual gain of over £1,250? In view of this massive feather-bedding of the rich, how can he possibly expect Government workers to accept a wage norm of 8 per cent.?

I do not accept the hon. Member's figures, which, as always, seem to be full of inaccuracies. But if the recent Fabian Society book is even approximately an accurate statement of what took place when the Labour Party was in power I should have thought that it would approach the question with a good deal more humility.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that the increased rents for council and private landlords' tenants under his Housing Finance Bill will not also bring about higher rating valuations.

I can assure the hon. Member that the rents to be determined under the Housing Finance Bill will not of themselves affect current rating valuations or those in the new lists to be deposited at the end of this year.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that assurance. I now ask him to give an assurance that this will not raise rateable values when the next revaluation takes place in five years. Is it not clear that a rise in rents will mean a similar rise in rateable values?

As the House knows, valuation for rating purposes is calculated on open market rents. In so far as fair rents are open market rents, less the scarcity value, the rateable value would already have taken account of that. Admittedly it is a difficult thing for valuation officers to do. Therefore, the only change that is likely in the 1978 valuation is if moving to fair rents discloses evidence which shows that the previous valuation has not been on a strict open market basis.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is a bit out of date with his answer? Is he aware that experts in this sphere have already predicted that at the end of the quinquennial review there will be increases in rateable value because assessors will have no option but to take the rent expected in the open market for a private house against the rent expected for a council house? Indeed, does he agree that his policy will mean increased rates not so much for council tenants as for private tenants?

The valuation for rating purposes will continue in 1978, as now, to reflect the open market rents of the preceding years. If the evidence of those years indicates that open market rents are going up, the valuation will go up; but this will not in any sense be a direct consequence of the Housing Finance Bill.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now give a straight answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun)? Is it not a fact that rates will go up in direct proportion to the way that rents will go up under the Bill.

I will not give an answer as a statement of fact about anything which may happen in future. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite got into difficulties and got the country into difficulties by assuming that they could make that kind of forecast. In 1978 the rateable value will be assessed, as now, on the open market rent obtainable for the housing concerned. In cases where the movement of fair rents shows that the comparison of one property with another has been altered there will be a consequential alteration in the rateable value.

Would my hon. Friend not confirm that in 1978 there will still be generous rent and rate rebates for the council tenant, and that in the private sector there will be equally generous rate rebates?

My hon. Friend is quite right. There is no reason, unless some Government reverse it, why the rate rebate scheme should not be equally or indeed more generous. The rent rebate scheme is being extended by the Housing Finance Bill to the private sector for the first time, and rent rebates will naturally continue.

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

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue directions to Government Departments to ensure that Scottish banknotes tendered to them enjoy the same status as their English equivalents.

Although Scottish banknotes are not legal tender in any part of the United Kingdom we are taking steps to inform Government Departments that they should be accepted.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the last part of that answer will be warmly accepted? Will he assure us that there will be no incidents similar to those which have occurred in the Passport Office in recent weeks, which have been put right by the Foreign Secretary recently, and that all Government Departments will accept these notes, whether or not they have legal significance?

That is the import of my answer.

On a point of order. I want to be assured that when we reach Question No. 45—assuming that we do—I will not be told——

Order. That is not a point of order.

On a point of order.

Order. Would the hon. Gentleman please raise his point of order at the end of Question Time?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake to review the provision of the Customs and Excise Acts whereby tax on fuel oil used in power stations for the manufacture of chemicals is paid in full if 50 per cent. of the energy is used for refinery purposes and remitted in full if less than 50 per cent. is so used.

We are considering representations we have received on this matter but my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment further now.

Does my right hon. Friend not think that the existing preponderance rule is inequitable and that the marginal change advocated by the Chemical Industries Association, supported by the British Plastics Federation, would be timely, in view of the present difficulties of the chemical industry, with investment not proceeding as planned and redundancies increasing in all major manufacturing centres, notably on Teesside?

The Question on the Order Paper has got the provisions the wrong way around. A power plant which is 50 per cent. or more used for petrochemical manufacture and oil refining is excused the duty on its fuel. A power plant otherwise used has to pay tax. I hope that that goes some way to meeting my hon. Friend's difficulties.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the light of recent events, he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards prices and incomes.

Yes Sir, the object of the policy is to decrease the rate of inflation, and that is being achieved.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that whatever it was that passed for a policy for prices and incomes since the date of the election has now collapsed miserably in ruins? Is it not becoming increasingly clear that the Government should have sought the co-operation of trade unions and employers eighteen months ago, instead of belatedly now? Is it not also true that the only lame ducks around these days are the policies which this Government are trying to follow?

No, Sir. The facts do not support what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he and the House will consider the index of retail prices, for example, they will see that the actual percentage change over six months earlier has been as follows—April last year, 5·7; May, 5·7; June, 5·6; July, 5·4; August, 5·1; September, 4·7; October, 3·4; November, 3·1; December, 2·9, and January, 2·6. Although you would not notice it, Mr. Speaker, from the reaction of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am sure that they are just as delighted as the housewife.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that those figures show that the Government's policy in this respect is working and will continue to work? Does he not further agree that in those circumstances the Government have no intention whatever of introducing any form of statutory prices and incomes policy?

The answer to my hon Friend is "Yes", on both points.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not particularly concerned about the figures that he has quoted? Is not the important thing that, irrespective of the recent award, which was fully justified, all too often in the past the only people who have been getting the increases are those who can exercise the greatest power? Surely, in our economy the weaker unions and other people should be considerd, and not just those who can blackmail the community.

I am very pleased to know that we have the support of at least one hon. Member opposite who is considering the plight of the weaker sections of the community.

Would my right hon. Friend make it clear to hon. Members opposite that the prices and incomes policy backed by legislative control was a complete failure, which had to be given up by the last Government? Would he urge them to back voluntary policies, which are the only ones that the T.U.C. wishes to see brought about, instead of currently backing every wage claim, which is bound to bring greater inflation?

My hon. Friend has a very good point. One point which has emerged clearly from our interchanges on these matters is that the Opposition have abdicated their responsibility. When they were last in office they at least tried to keep down prices and the cost of living. As my hon. Friend has said, they introduced a comprehensive control of wages by statute, which is certainly something which this Government are not prepared to do.

Will the Chancellor not seriously consider that his N-1 formula on which his whole policy is based has been shown to be unworkable because it cannot make any allowance for special cases like that of the miners' settlement?

Each case is considered on its merits, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to see a de-escalation of the increase in prices, it is essential that there should be a de-escalation in the level of wage settlements.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend depreciation allowances to cover the fabric of hotel buildings and structures.

My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the Budget Statement.

I appreciate that reply, but in view of the importance of the tourist industry, not only in view of foreign earnings but from the point of view of future employment, and in view of the ending, next year, of the grants and loans scheme, would not my hon. Friend agree that every effort should be made to ensure the continuing provision of modern hotel facilities? Would not depreciation allowances be the best method of achieving this end?

I note my hon. Friend's point. It may reassure him to know that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is seeing representatives of the tourist industry tomorrow.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has now received from widows about their financial plight; and what replies he has sent.

We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and organisations and also from widows personally. We have replied, as always, fully and with sympathy.

Widows will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sympathy, but could he offer them a little more? Is he aware that many working widows go out to work in middle age, after having been bereaved, and that they should often be treated as special cases, because they have no expertise and experience of industry? In the light of those circumstances, will he not consider offering them higher tax relief on their earnings?

I hope that every Government will always have great sympathy with the difficulties experienced by widows, particularly those women to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred who go out to work after they have been bereaved. Indeed, the Government will have sympathy with all in reduced circumstances. But it would not be right for me now to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend has just said, during the next fortnight would he, together with my right hon. Friend, pay particular regard to those women who are living on maintenance payments, which payments are taxed at present as unearned income?

As my hon. Friend will know, when the new system of unified tax comes into force next year the first slice of investment income will be taxed at the same rate as earned income and, as I pointed out in the Budget debates last year, will be of great value to that particular category of persons.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a booklet of instructions to assist particularly the elderly in post-war credit claims.

There will be a widespread publicity campaign which will be repeated each month, to draw attention to the repayment scheme. In addition, tax offices are always willing to give further help if needed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be grateful for any information that is provided in order to assist our constituents with their rights? Would he bear in mind that this information is beginning to be needed now, as at our surgeries we are continually receiving requests from constituents for information on this subject?

I considered very carefully the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there should be a booklet but, on reflection, it did not seem the best way to help. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the first monthly Press publicity will take place this month, and it will concern the repayment of post-war credits to those people whose surnames begin with the letters A, B and C.

Would my right hon. Friend concentrate on the publicity side, because much consternation is being caused to some people who suddenly find that they are not entitled to a long expected postwar credit because of some long-forgotten income tax arrear or non-payment? Would my right hon. Friend look into that matter?

Yes, Sir. The Inland Revenue recognises that the publicity of this repayment scheme is very important indeed, and it has given a great deal of thought to it.

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets under way with this publicity scheme, will he ensure that the Morning Star has an adequate amount of the publicity, too?

Give them your post-war credits.

I shall make some inquiries on that point.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many trade, professional and sports organisations have written to him expressing concern about the effects of value-added tax and what replies he has sent.

In response to the invitation in the Green Paper on V.A.T., nearly 700 organisations have put forward representations covering numerous aspects of the tax. They have been informed that their representations are being taken into account in planning the tax.

But would the right hon. Gentleman accept that no proposal on the reform of our taxation system has been received with so much apprehension as the proposal to introduce value-added tax? Without trying to ascertain what the Budget Statement will contain a fortnight hence, may I express the hope—and would the right hon. Gentleman accept—that those who have expressed doubts and apprehensions expect their apprehensions to be reflected in the Budget Statement?

The hon. Gentleman may be reassured to know that we have had representations from about 60 sports organisations. We have received representations from the Football Association, the Football League, the Scottish Football League, and so on. We have noted what they have said, and the hon. Gentleman's point.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make an official visit to Scotland soon after his Budget Statement.

As yet, none, Sir.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be aware of the great concern in Scotland about the Budget and its effect on growth rate, and the effect of growth rate on unemployment. Would he confirm or deny that unless the United Kingdom achieves a growth rate of at least 6 per cent. per annum for the next few years there will be no measurable impact on Scottish unemployment?

I should be delighted, as the hon. Gentleman so generously suggests, to find a suitable opportunity to visit Scotland, because it would give me a chance to expound the fact that the present Government have taken more action to expand demand and promote employment in all parts of the United Kingdom than have any previous Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as the first Chancellor of the Exchequer since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary massively to reduce taxation, he will always be welcome in Scotland, and that he will be even more welcome if he can come to Scotland after the Budget as a Chancellor who has reversed the damage done by the massive increases in road taxation imposed by the Labour Party?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what effect his massive measures have had upon unemployment in Scotland?

The simple fact is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that he and his predecessor, the two Labour Chancellors, year after year after year, deflated the economy, imposed restrictionist measures and increased taxation to an extent which was bound to have its effect on demand and employment. At least the present Government, since coming to office, have consistently taken steps to reverse that policy.

rose——

Sit down!

Order. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) must address the Chair.

On a point of order. Did I hear you call me, Mr. Speaker?

Order. The hon. Member is not entitled to shout "Sit down".

I was being interrupted after you called me, Mr. Speaker.

Order. The hon. Member is not backward in coming forward in complaining of the conduct of other hon. Members. Question No. 18.

Apologise!

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the loss of revenue arising from total cancellation of the remainder of selective employment tax from 21st March, 1972, to 31st March, 1973, with the introduction of value-added tax on 1st April, 1973; and to help reduce unemployment and prevent further inflation following settlement of the miners' pay claim whether he will now make a statement on his proposals in this field.

The net yield of S.E.T. in the 12 months of 1972–73 is estimated at £250 million and the yield of the last contribution week in 1971–72 is estimated at £5 million. As regards the second part of the Question, my hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the Budget Statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current real value of the £ sterling as compared with June, 1970.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the purchasing power of the £ sterling now, taking it as 100p on 18th June, 1970.

I would refer the hon. Members to my hon. Friend the Minister of State's reply to a similar question yesterday by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter). —[Vol. 832, c. 233.]

I am afraid that I have not had time to look it up. I have been in Committee on the Housing Finance Bill. I suppose that it would be fair to say that it has dropped again, below the level mentioned in the reply I saw last time. Is the Minister aware that this will promote even further wage claims, and that if the Housing Finance Bill, which will increase rents by 25 per cent. this year alone, is not scrapped, even further wage claims will have to be advanced in order to compensate for that?

What has certainly dropped is the rate of inflation. Figures given by my hon. Friend yesterday show that the value of the pound fell, between June, 1970, and January, 1972, to 88p. In those 19 months, the first 10 months accounted for 8p and the last 9 months accounted for 4p.

Is the Minister aware that for a basketful of shopping which cost £5 in June, 1970, the housewife now has to pay £5·68? Is he further aware that the Government's economic policy is lying in ruins, that the Prime Minister's pledge to cut prices at a stroke is buried beneath those ruins, and that the housewife will never forgive the Prime Minister for deceiving her?

I cannot do better to answer the hon. Member than to quote from the Daily Mail leading article today:

"Mr. Heath has achieved a remarkable success in halving the rate of both pay and price increases."

Can my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary tell us what is the current real value of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?

In view of the fact the Minister said he could not do better than that answer, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he received in February, requesting a lowering of the tax on liquefied petroleum gas: and if he will make a statement.

The duty on this gas has not yet been brought into effect. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor hopes to be able to make a statement shortly.

Does the Chief Secretary realise that the whole wrangle over L.P.G. is a symbol of something rather more important, namely, the general strategy of the Government as to whether they are prepared to help those things which are anti-pollutant and show a bias against those things which are pollutant?

I take the hon. Member's point, but if it is wished to achieve what he said, the fiscal system is not necessarily the best way of doing it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment told me in answer to a question that he would in no way wish to see any tax provisions put on L.P.G., because it is an anti-pollutant?

It is an anti-pollutant whether it is used in vehicles or industrially, and therefore the considerations which must and will be taken into account when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his statement are wide and very considerable.

Does the Chief Secretary realise that his answer to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was totally unsatisfactory? Will he explain why he says that fiscal measures are not suitable measures for dealing with pollution?

I said that fiscal measures were not necessarily suitable for this purpose. The greatest possible use of the fuel would still leave a large number of conventional petrol and diesel engines which would not therefore be prevented by fiscal means from polluting the atmosphere.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to increase the level of manufacturing investment.

I cannot anticipate my Budget Statement.

Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer seen the reports in the Financial Times that there will be further cuts in machine tool investment and that there will be yet further redundancies in the machine tool industry? What action will the Chancellor take to avert this, bearing in mind that one of the most serious criticisms that may be made of the Government is that they allowed investment in machine tools to dwindle and decline until the machine tool industry faced severe difficulty?

I note what the hon. Member says but, as I stated in my original answer, I cannot anticipate my Budget Statement, which will be a fortnight today.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will allow as a deduction from gross income the charges on a hire-purchase contract to finance the purchase of a caravan home, in the same way that he allows a deduction of interest on a loan taken out for the same purpose.

I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

In practice, bank loans are available only to those who live in houses, and people who live in caravan homes can borrow money only on hire purchase. Therefore, as it now stands, there is one law for the rich and one for the poor.

It is open to those purchasing caravan homes to do so by means of a credit sale agreement as opposed to a hire-purchase agreement, and therefore to attract tax relief. I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I cannot go further until my right hon. Friend's forthcoming Budget Statement.

Would it not be a step in the right direction if the Government were to consider implementing those provisions of the Crowther Report that would require the public to know the true rate of interest that they are being charged in all these transactions?

These matters are being considered by the Government, but they would not affect the issue of hire-purchase interest.