asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with his existing policies for combating inflation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the progress of his policies designed to reduce the rate of inflation.

Inflation is too high at present. The social contract remains the basis of our policy for curbing inflation and safeguarding employment. The Government have acted on their side of the contract, but it is vital that the whole working population sees its responsibilities too. We must achieve strict adherence to the TUC guidelines on pay if our counter-inflation policy is to succeed and if employment is to be maintained.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of today's OECD report, rising inflation and the awful threat of more unemployment, there needs now to be much more co-operation from trade unionists with this Government, who have co-operated with them? Is there not now an urgent need for the unions to adopt the form of co-operation which has been shown by the Trades Union Congress? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a massive endeavour is now required if we are to combat the evil threat of mass unemployment, which can hit trade unionists more than anybody else?

Yes. I welcome my hon. Friend's views. I am glad to know that he agrees with me that the Government's policy to carry out the programme they agreed with the TUC will depend critically on stricter adherence to the TUC guidelines on pay than has previously been achieved.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is no use continuing to mouth the old policies when it is clear that the guidelines are being broken again and again and that the social contract in its present form is absolutely dead? Surely the Chancellor will agree that if the social contract, in any form, is to be retained there will have to be a serious negotiation with the TUC on ways of monitoring the policy and tightening up of the guidelines?

The hon. Gentleman may be glad to know that the representative of OECD who was responsible for the report said on a Radio 4 programme this morning that he believed that the social contract was far from dead. However. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some way of achieving stricter adherence to the guidelines is required.

The Chancellor will no doubt agree, though, that the comments by the anonymous gentleman from OECD were somewhat guarded. Does he not agree also with the main observation of the OECD report that the present and prospective rate of inflation is still highly disturbing, and underlines again and again and again the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) that the very real and serious threat to employment in Britain arises from the risk of continuing inflation at the present rate, and it is of the highest degree of urgency for all wage settlements to take far greater account of this point than is currently happening under the social contract?

I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can lecture me on that point, because I have spoken—possibly to the boredom of many hon. Members—continually on this matter for the past six to nine months. Perhaps our discussions would be a little more worth while if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would tell us, as he has strictly refrained from doing so far, whether he is in favour of a statutory pay policy and, if not, what sort of alternative to the social contract he would propose.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present rate of inflation.

The increase in the retail prices index in the 12 months to February 1975 was 19·9 per cent. Over the last 12 months, overseas borrowing by public sector bodies has totalled some $2·9 billion. In addition, the total amount of the $2·5 billion Government loan with the clearing banks has now been drawn down.

Is it not alarmingly clear that after 18 months the Chancellor still has no effective policy to curb inflation? May I ask which half of the divided Cabinet is responsible for the nation's economic management?

I do not know which half of the whole Cabinet is responsible for the Government's policy, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my own influence is not unsubstantial.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what effect withdrawal from the Common Market will have on the rate of inflation?

No, Sir.

Since prevailing wage increases are higher than prevailing price increases, and will therefore pull up prices in the coming months, is it not essential to get a new norm in the social contract, to the effect that wage increases should be lower than the prevailing rate of price increases to reduce the rate of inflation?

I do not think that is required. I can tell the House that wage increases in the last six months are bound to continue pushing up the retail price index for some months to come. On the other hand, the levelling-off in world prices will allow a steady decline in the retail price index towards the end of this year. That decline will be faster to the extent that the existing guidelines are observed.

Since the Chancellor was yesterday making some kind of confessional and asserting two of the lessons he has learned in his first 12 months, will he acknowledge a third lesson he ought to learn, namely, the folly of his giving currency during the last election campaign to the inflation figure of 8·4 per cent., which has been wholly belied by his recent answer? Does he also acknowledge that one of the factors still contributing to the substantial rate of inflation is the high level of public expenditure, the commitment of the Government to expanding Government activities by the appointment of organisations like the National Enterprise Board and the land nationalisation agencies, all of which will contribute to the difficulty of keeping down wages in the public sector and so keeping down the rate of inflation?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman could perhaps learn a lesson now, which is that the figure of 8·4 per cent. as given as the rate of inflation for the three months to September of last year was used by the Common Market Commission, so often quoted by Conservative Members. The same determinate was used by the Price Commission, under the leadership of Sir Arthur Cockfield, the late tax adviser to the former Conservative Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to announce his co-ordinated poverty programme to protect the poor from the effect of inflation.

I am constantly in discussion with my colleagues on the co-ordination of our policies which affect the poor. The results are reflected in separate announcements of Government policy, a number of which I mentioned in my reply to my hon. Friend on 27th February.

My hon. Friends and I welcome his acceptance of that responsibility for co-ordination, but will my right hon. Friend take it that it seems at the moment to be, shall I say, passive? Many of us would like him to take an active role in this respect. If he accepts responsibility, will he take some steps now to exercise it?

I am not sure to what I should attribute my hon. Friend's vehemence, but he will know that a good many measures which I have taken in taxation matters have been calculated towards and have been effective in protecting the poor against the effect of inflation. A large number of other measures have been agreed by the Cabinet, with my consent, within the purview of other Ministers, such as the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. I assure my hon. Friend that, so far as my own departmental responsibilities go, I shall keep this requirement in the forefront of my mind.

In reply to an earlier question, the Chancellor said that he did not intend the deficit of nationalised industries to fall upon the taxpayer—a very proper view to take—but he will recognise that the consequence is that it will fall upon individual consumers, whether poor or less poor, and upon the company consumer as well. Therefore, in the light of the almost certain increase in the cost of nationalised industries' products—even more certain if he is unable to do anything to curb the vast wage increases now being sought in the nationalised industries—will the right hon. Gentleman set out in detail the way in which he will protect the poor and those companies which are in a dangerously illiquid position from the large increases in prices which will inevitably follow from the very proper undertaking which he has now given?

I have set those out in detail in various statements, several of which were mentioned in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) on 27th February and most of which, I imagine, the hon. Gentleman heard in the House. I must, however, remind the hon. Gentleman of one fact, which, since his right hon. and learned Friend referred yesterday to my speech at the Mansion House, may be worth stating again. I think that there is now general agreement on both sides of the House that the major cause of the inflation now racking Britain is the excessive increase in the money supply which took place in the last year of the previous Conservative Government. I was glad to see that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) nodded his head vigorously when I said that yesterday, and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will now concur, although she was a member of the Government who were responsible for that large increase in the money supply.

May I press my right hon. Friend further on the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), which causes great anxiety on the Government side of the House? We want to know what kind of interdepartmental machinery has been or will be established to co-ordinate these efforts. Interdepartmental co-ordination is what we are interested in. Secondly, will my right hon. Friend consider publishing an annual report examining all aspects of poverty right across the board, as it is affected by the work of several different Departments?

It has never been the practice of any Government to give details of the composition and functions of various Cabinet committees, but I assure my hon. Friend that there is a Cabinet committee, of which I am chairman, which keeps continued supervision over the effect of various Government measures on the worse-off in our community. I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion that there might be some regular publication covering this ground, but I cannot commit myself at the moment.

As the Chancellor has referred to the money supply. I remind him that in the current period public expenditure is running at about 10 per cent. higher, in real terms, than the figures proposed on 17th December 1973. How will that help him control the money supply and keep it down to the level which he proposes?

I am glad to pay tribute to the savage attacks which the hon. Gentleman launched, before he joined the Opposition Front Bench, on the monetary policy of the Government of which he was a member, and I am sure that he will be aware that over the past 12 months we have succeeded in keeping the rate of increase in the money supply, whether M1 or M3, far below the rate of increase in the GNP, in money terms.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now abolish dividend restraint.

No, Sir; there has been no change in the position since my right hon. Friend informed the House on 2nd July 1974 that he intended to carry out a comprehensive review of the controls later this year. The Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth has been asked to assemble some of the factual information for the review, and to report by the early summer.

Does not the Paymaster-General recognise that the continuation of the policy of dividend restraint is having increasingly damaging effects, including distortions in the capital market; penalties, and therefore disincentives, to savers whose returns are not keeping pace with inflation; and, above all, perhaps, disadvantages for pension funds in terms of their revenue flow and, hence, potentially for many millions of pension fund holders? In the light of all these facts and of the fact that we cannot wait for the report of the Royal Commission, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this policy?

I think that we can wait for the report of the Royal Commission, and the arguments the hon. Gentleman adduced will no doubt be seen in better perspective against the facts presented by the commission.

Does the Paymaster-General agree that the abolition of commercial rent control went a long way to meet the genuine point made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor)?

We believed that that was vitally necessary at that moment. That is why we did it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that if it is the Government's aim to penalise the rich for the purpose of the social contract, that purpose is better achieved through the taxation system? Does he not agree that dividend control is a blunt instrument, which penalises alike the poor, the investor, the pension fund and the charity? Is it not a fact that the increases now allowed are well below the going rate of inflation, and that that is the unfairness of the system?

The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have not shown any marked enthusiasm recently for the Government's taxation proposals. As for the matter of dividend restraint or the abolition of these controls, that is a matter which we shall consider when we receive the report.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the rate at which nationalised industries are reducing the need for subsidy in their operations.

Yes, Sir. The phasing out of subsidies for price restraint by the gas and electricity industries and the Post Office is likely to be completed by 1976–77. The railways and, to a much lesser extent, the coal industry will be given continued support for social reasons.

Will the Paymaster-General reconsider the last part of his answer? Does he not agree that it is essential that the resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter be sustained? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of the favourable consequences of that part of the Chancellor's policies in respect of which he is remaining firm so far as the Budget deficit is concerned?

In reply to the last part of the supplementary question, I cannot give any figures about the Budget deficit. As to the first part, I do not think hon. Members opposite are in a position to complain about my right hon. Friend's resolution. Hon. Members opposite handed over to us a vast deficit on this account, which we are now trying to correct.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these increases in nationalised industry prices bear heavily on those least able to meet them, and that increases in benefits may not be enough to alleviate the problem, particularly in respect of electricity prices? Will my right hon. Friend say what he proposes to do about them?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy indicated recently, he has asked the electricity industry to weight the electricity price increases in favour of the small consumer. Something similar was done in respect of the gas price increases earlier in the year. I believe that the main emphasis here in helping to alleviate the undoubted problem to which my hon. Friend refers must be through the social security system.

Is the Paymaster-General aware that if the present railway fare proposals are accepted, railway fares will have gone up by about 43 per cent. in 12 months, and yet British Rail is still faced with a continuing and massive deficit? Is it not a fact that the finances of nationalised industry are out of control?

Most railways throughout the world, I believe, receive Government subsidy of one kind or another. The facts to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are very relevant in the current claims of the railway industry.

If there are excessive wage claims in the public sector which go beyond the guidelines of the social contract, will it be the Chancellor's policy to push these extra costs through into the prices of the nationalised industries as a matter of policy?

This is an inevitable result of excessive wage claims in these industries. Prices will have to go up very much faster.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement upon the different movement of wage increases in the public and private sectors, and their implications for the Government's anti-inflationary policies.

Since the abolition of statutory pay control, there has been little difference between the public and private sectors in the level of settlements, excluding the special cases. The rate of settlement throughout the economy as a whole nevertheless remains too high, and this is why we have repeatedly called for strict adherence to the spirit of the TUC guidelines if we are to avoid the twin evils of rapid inflation and rising unemployment.

The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that the recent apparent moderation in the rate of increase in the latest figures is obviously encouraging, but has he noticed that there have been some estimates from sources which he has quoted on other occasions that the rate of increase in the public sector is increasing, or is at least not falling? Does he agree that the fact that the public sector is so removed from the normal market influence is worrying and is another argument for saying that the public sector should not be extended?

I have looked carefully into this matter. The evidence is not unambiguous, but there is no conclusive evidence that so far the public sector settlements have been substantially in excess of those in the private sector. Both have been running at about the same rate. I recognise the force of what the hon. Gentleman says and I should tell the House that I have no intention of allowing excessive settlements in the public sector to be loaded on to the taxpayer.

Has the right hon. Gentleman recommended to his Cabinet colleagues that the guidelines of the social contract should be tightened up?

No, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated total cost to the Exchequer of treating private fee-paying schools as charities; and whether he will now take steps to end the tax advantage of this status as it affects them.

The information on which to base a reply to the first part of the Question is not available. As to the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend intends to pursue this matter as part of the wider question of the appropriate definition of a charity, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 5th February 1975, c. 914.]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Donnison Commission, which reported as long ago as 1968, produced figures and, therefore, it should not be impossible to update those figures? Does he recognise that the commission pointed out that there were 900 private schools which were regarded as charities, including all the public schools, like Eton and Harrow, which got enormous tax and rate concessions, which means subsidising the children of rich people? Will not the Labour Government now carry out their manifesto pledge to protect the poor and remove this kind of subsidisation of these people, which they do not deserve?

I shall be very surprised if my hon. Friend really believes that the Government have been subsidising the rich. There are some serious difficulties. The available figures of tax relief for charities do not distinguish between fee-paying schools and other charities. Secondly, they relate only to repayments of tax deducted at source.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the total saving to the Exchequer resulting from the fact that these children are educated at the expense of their parents and not at the expense of the State?

The real question is what pre-emption of very scarce resources is involved—

That is not what I asked.

But that is the important point—what pre-emption of very scarce and extremely skilled resources is made available to an extremely small and narrow section of the community.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister, I think inadvertently, answered the wrong question.

That is a very old complaint in this place.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration has been given to relieving the operation of fixed coin weighing machines of value added tax.

This question has been fully considered as a result of previous representations by my hon. Friend, but for the reasons I have outlined to him in correspondence I regret that his proposal cannot be accepted.

Is my hon. Friend not prepared to reconsider that decision? I believe he is aware that I have written to him on this subject in the past. Is he further aware that these firms are being asked to pay a tax in respect of the consumer but which they find impossible to levy on the consumer? Is he further aware that as a consequence they have to pay 8 per cent. of their gross income, which has a disastrous effect upon their net profit? Will my hen. Friend reconsider the urgent need for zero rating these firms?

I am aware of the difficulties that my hon. Friend has put forward. He will be aware that anomalies are confined to machines like launderettes and weighing machines. With vending machines that sell confectionery it is possible for the amount sold to be adjusted to take account of the tax. I am sorry to have to say that, having looked at this question closely, as did the previous administration, we have found that it is not practicable to select one type of vending machine for zero rating.

Has my hon. Friend received any request from small businesses in other industries for permission to delay VAT payments to help them with their cash flow problems? Will he at least permit Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to talk to such firms to see whether there is any possibility of such a delay?

Offhand I am not aware of any recent representations to that effect. One of the features of VAT is that it improves the cash flow of many firms, because they receive the input tax deduction before they have to account to Customs and Excise for the output tax.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received opposing the introduction of additional rates of VAT.

My right hon. Friend has received about 1,200 such letters, of which approximately 900 come from retail pharmacists. Other letters expressing similar views have been received by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, which has informed Ministers of the views that they have expressed.

Are the Government aware of the widespread feeling that the present system for the collection of VAT and many of the VAT returns imposes an extra burden, particularly on small and medium-sized businesses? Is he aware that it would be intolerable to complicate the system further by introducing multi-rate VAT?

We are aware of the problems that VAT has entailed for the small business man. Customs and Excise has recently introduced a whole array of further simplified schemes after prolonged discussions with various trade associations aimed at helping such businesses as best it can.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only a question of increasing additional rates of VAT but of keeping within the power of this House the imposition of VAT rates on articles now exempted, such as food, travel and fuel? Will he tell the House why his Department and the Departments of some of his hon. Friends insist that, despite the economic convergence assumed if we stay in the Community, we need not put VAT on any of these things which are exempt or zero-rated at the moment?

We have always made it clear that in no circumstances would we agree to a harmonisation which covered foodstuffs. There is a great variety of rates and structures in the various countries of the Community and it is relatively fruitless now to speculate precisely where harmonisation would end up.

Will the Financial Secretary now answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate)? I put this seriously and in no partisan sense, it being a most important matter. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that any decision by the Government to introduce a multi-rate VAT system would put a substantial additional burden on many of those who are now responsible for collection, that to move in that direction would be to threaten the entire system of tax collection and would cause grave inconvenience and harm to many small traders, and that the Government ought to reject the idea out of hand here and now.

Speculation of the sort in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just indulged is based on all sorts of assumptions, for which he has no foundation whatever, as to the shape and size of a multi-rate system if one were to be introduced.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about contingency plans to protect the British economy in the event of a British withdrawal from the EEC.

The Government have recommended to the British people to vote for staying in the Community. I am, of course, always prepared to revise my economic policies if necessary, in the light of changed circumstances.

Is it none the less not important, in view of the risk of a "No" vote, to make contingency plans for what would happen if there were withdrawal from the Common Market? If that is so, does the Minister not accept that it will involve co-ordination between a number of Government Departments? Will that not he an impossible task? Some of the Ministers will be in favour of staying in and some will be in favour of coming out which will mean that the views they form on contingency plans will differ radically.

As the hon. Gentleman will know if he has consulted his right hon. and hon. colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, consultation between Departments is an osmotic and continuing process under all Governments.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that many people in the House and throughout our nation believe that one reason for our difficult situation is the absurd terms agreed when entering the EEC? Does he not further agree that while a "No" vote will enhance our chances of economic recovery—[Interruption.] I hope that some of the pro-Market horny-handed sons of the soil behind me will not laugh at this. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it will be the endeavours of the British working people which will put this country right, and not the fancy theories of some economists?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the theories of economists rarely put anything right. I also agree with him if what he implied in his latter remarks was that, irrespective of whether we remain a member of the Community, our economic salvation lies overall and overwhelmingly in our own hands.

Had the Government not secured these modest changes in the terms they would have been recommending withdrawal. Must it not be sheer nonsense for some of the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet colleagues now to say that it would be catastrophic if Britain were to withdraw from the Community? What adverse effects does the right hon. Gentleman consider as being likely to arise from a "No" vote?

The hon. Member will not succeed in drawing me on the latter point. I can tell him—it is important that we should recognise this—that the critical problems which require resolution if this country is to improve its economic performance are problems which it is within our power to resolve, irrespective of whether we are in the Community. The terms the Government have renegotiated will make it easier for us to resolve those problems as members of the Community.

Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend not accept that the British people are entitled to know what plans the Government have in the event of a "No" vote and are entitled to know in a clear statement what the cost would be?

The important thing for the House to recognise—the previous Government recognised this in much of the information they published—is that the economic gains and losses to be derived from membership of the Community are extremely difficult to calculate. They are the subject of great dispute among experts who supported entry and those who opposed it. On the other hand, I must tell my hon. Friend that a decision to leave the Community is very different from a decision not to join it. The economic consequences of doing so would be very much more grave.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the motor industry relating to fiscal policy in relation to the industry; and what reply he has given.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Motor Agents' Association and the Ford Motor Company have written to my right hon. Friend with a number of proposals designed to improve the prospects of the industry. He has replied saying that he will bear their representations in mind.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the dire effect on the motor industry and those employed in it of working below capacity, and do the Government accept that we should try to aim at achieving a constant rate of output in the industry, so far as that is practicable?

We fully understand the difficulties facing the industry at this moment, and we recognise that it is desirable that the industry should increase its production.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied that he is receiving the full taxation due on fees for private abortions done in Great Britain.

No, Sir. if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind and will let me have details, I shall be glad to have it looked into.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a recently published book, "Babies for Burning", which had wide publicity in this country, has one constant theme—that doctors operating or doing abortions privately were always demanding payment in cash and that advice was given by a named charity in London that payment had to be in cash? Does this not call for some form of investigation, to see whether that book's allegations are right?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is far easier to make allegations of that sort than it is to sustain them with evidence which could be supported in a criminal prosecution. I repeat that if he, or any other hon. Member, has evidence of abuses of that sort I shall be only too happy to look into them.

asked the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to meet the leaders of the umbrella organisations in connection with continued EEC membership.

I have been asked to reply.

May we be assured that, in meeting these umbrella organisations, the Lord President will take up a totally impartial attitude in relation to the coming referendum? Second, in view of the unique event of public funds being made available to these non-political bodies, will a public account of these meetings be made available?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be taking a completely impartial attitude towards the organisation of the referendum, although his personal view, of course, is in favour of our continued membership of the Community. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the best thing I can say is that my right hon. Friend will be prepared to answer questions about any aspect of the negotiations and give such details as are available from time to time.

If at 11.40 a.m., with only one Question to go, I am permitted to ask a slightly longer supple- mentary question, that being in your interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of everyone else—

Order. Even on Maundy Thursday, the hon. Gentleman will realise that another four hon. Members rose to ask supplementary questions when he did.

Will my hon. Friend make some statement on the provision for United Kingdom citizens who are permanently resident in the Community countries and who appear to be denied the vote under the proposals which have been announced in the Press this morning?

As I understand it the matter is under consideration, but if my hon. Friend wishes to put down a Question to that effect my right hon. Friend will be pleased to answer it.

Is it the case that the Government are anxious to bring forward the referendum date? What approximate time scale do they now have in mind?

That is rather wide of this Question. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put down a Question on that matter my right hon. Friend will answer it.

Will my hon. Friend convey to the Leader of the House that it is essential that there should be equal opportunities for fair presentation of the arguments on both sides and that there should be no advantage one way or the other?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking a question on which I have a note for a supplementary answer. I am happy to tell him that the two sides have had discussions with the Lord President, that they have agreed to prepare a statement of their sides of the case which will be of no more than 2,000 words, and that each of these statements will be produced as a separate pamphlet and distributed at public expense in order to put the respective cases dispassionately.

Will the Minister tell the House what representations were made to the Lord President by the leaders of the umbrella organisations in regard to those on holiday having the right to vote in the referendum?

I have no information about that aspect of their representations, but, again, my right hon. Friend will be pleased to answer any of these questions when the Bill is discussed in its progress through the House.

Since one of the objectives of the grant to the so-called umbrella organisations is to try to rectify a clear imbalance in resources, can my right hon. Friend give any information about the reasons for the relatively modest sum mentioned in the Bill? Since the House is being asked to make amendments, possibly before Second Reading, and in the first week after the recess, will my hon. Friend give the reasons of the Leader of the House for providing that sum and the criteria on which it has been based?

It seemed to the Government that a grant of £125,000 to each of the organisations was, to say the least, a little more than modest, and was a reasonable contribution to each side to put its case. There is no limit to the amount which may be spent by any of the organisations, and no doubt each of them will be appealing to the public for funds.

Will the Minister, who seems to be functioning this morning rather as an umbrella Minister—with rather less than a fully covered umbrella—convey to the Lord President and his colleagues the very great strength of feeling about the fact that people who are on holiday and who are living outside this country should be entitled to vote in the referendum on the footing that on this occasion, as opposed to a General Election campaign, there will be sufficient time for the registration officers to accommodate applications if the arrangements are set in hand almost immediately? This is a significant point of view which is widely held.

I can certainly acknowledge the strength of feeling about this matter in certain areas. It is a point which would be properly dealt with in consideration of the Bill, and no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman will wish to table an amendment to that effect.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech on one-parent families by the Secretary of State for Social Services at the conference of the National Council for One-Parent Families on 21st February represents the policies of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that answer, like the speech, will be greeted with great disappointment by the many one-parent families in this country? Does he agree that the 1 million children of one-parent families are the largest group of children in the country who are potentially the most economically and socially vulnerable? Will he undertake to reconsider the guaranteed maintenance allowance, accepting that a special cash benefit would be the most important help that could be given to these families?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the special category here and the amount of poverty, which in many cases is concealed. She will know that the Finer Report had 200 recommendations and that in this, as in all matters of social services and health, we are having to proceed in accordance with priorities. A considerable amount has been done within the Finer Report to help. My hon. Friend who has studied this matter so fully will know what has been done and I shall not outline it now. The particular point that she mentioned is being considered in relation to other social service and health priorities and general priorities, and also against the very severe constraints on public spending which must operate at this time.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he would get a great deal of support from this side of the House if he were to consider transferring some of the money at present spent on indiscriminate food subsidies to help one-parent families? We are not asking him to increase public expenditure. We know his difficulties—all Governments have difficulties—but some of us think it wrong that our needs should take priority over the needs of this group.

Yes, but so little has been done in this area. Of course, all families benefit from the food subsidies to the extent of about 7p in the pound in the shopping basket, and that includes the one-parent families. This is a matter of priorities. We are proceeding with great urgency. The point raised by my hon. Friend is being considered, but I cannot give any assurance about timing at this stage.

asked the Prime Minister what subjects he proposes to raise at the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in Jamaica.

We shall, of course, be discussing a wide range of issues at Kingston. In particular, I shall use the opportunity to develop some of the ideas on world trade in commodities which I mentioned in my speech at Leeds on 9th February.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he say what progress he has made on the question of commodities, because this is a vital aspect of trade to Commonwealth and developing countries? When he meets his colleagues in Jamaica will he take the opportunity to confirm that every Commonwealth Government now wish Britain to remain within the EEC?

My hon. Friend's first point is the subject of an initiative which we are taking, which was begun in my talks with President Ford in Washington. It has been further discussed with a number of Commonwealth Prime Ministers who have visited this country, including the Prime Ministers of New Zealand, Guyana and Canada. It is of vital importance, particularly to developing countries and certain producers, because we want more security and stability in food production for consumers and on the question of fertilisers and feeding stuffs. This is a very complicated issue. The problem has never been solved on past occasions, and it is important that some progress is made.

Does the Prime Minister agree that commodities represent a very good area for EEC intervention, and that the setting up of an EEC fund, for example, for mineral development overseas, could be a very appropriate area for EEC activities?

The hon. Member is right, and I think he will be aware that in the Lomé Convention a beginning was made—all sides of the House will welcome this—in commodity stabilisation, although the funds for this are relatively limited. In the Heads of Government summit in Dublin a fortnight ago, I made a fairly lengthy statement to the other Heads of Government on the lines of the initiative which I have already described, and it was warmly welcomed by those who spoke. We shall, of course, consult them in the furtherance of this initiative, which some of them have been pursuing in different ways overseas.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to visit the City of London.

I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the many warm expressions that have emanated from some parts of the City about the increase in British exports in the past quarter? Does he agree that in view of this welcome change of heart in some parts of the City, those other parts that maintain their myopic hostility to Labour Government should drop it?

It is true that the recent trend in the balance of payments has been warmly welcomed in the City. One cannot judge long-term trends from even three months—although I have known people who have tried to judge them on the basis of a single month's figures—but it is a fact that—and here the City, with its increasing invisible earnings, has made a significant contribution—over the past month or two we have seen the non-oil deficit, which was very big last year, turned into a surplus. It will be the hope of every hon. Member, as well as everyone in the City, that this trend will be maintained. We still have the oil deficit to meet, but progress has been made. The important thing now is to ensure that everything is done, both internally and externally, to maintain that progress.

Will the Prime Minister visit the City and other parts of London to collect opinions about the forthcoming visit of Mr. Shelepin and then issue clear instructions on whether that gentleman is to receive official entertainment?

I know the interest taken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in these matters. I visit the City frequently, and when I do not do so I have representative City leaders to No. 10, as I did last Monday night. We have regular dinners here in Westminster and in the City. Last week I met the BIA. I always invite the City leaders to say anything that they have on their minds. They have a great deal to say about financial, economic and industrial matters, but not one of them has so far raised the question of Mr. Shelepin. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has answered a Question on it.

When the Prime Minister visits the City of London, will he look into the question of the London weighting allowance, and take into account the fact that many people in Scotland feel it a great injustice, when they suffer similar cost pressures, that there is no similar allowance for them? With his well-known sense of fairness and consideration for Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman seek speedily to put that matter right?

It is not a subject that I could explore satisfactorily within the City of London. The London weighting allowance is not confined to the Square Mile. The Scottish question has been raised a number of times. It was not raised with me on my two recent visits to Scotland, but I am well aware of the feelings expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for the kind reference he made to me.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will reduce the present 30 years' ban on the publication of Cabinet papers.

Following the initiative which I took in March 1966, the Public Records Act 1967 reduced the period of protection for public records, including Cabinet documents, from 50 to 30 years. I have no evidence at present that a further change is required.

Will the Prime Minister please reconsider that answer, in the light of the circumstances of the referendum—circumstances which he has described as unique? Does he not think that it would help the country to debate the matter without rancour if the spirit of comradely love and brotherly unity in the Cabinet could be displayed for all the British people to see when they are discussing the subject?

It is not only in the Cabinet that that spirit is to be found. The meeting with the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party yesterday was full of such manifestations. I hope that the Opposition will be able to follow us in these matters, because it is a unique occasion. It is a question that cuts across parties. But I do not think that the Public Records Act is involved. I wanted to cut the ban from 50 to 25 years, but I could not get the agreement of the Conservative Party to any cut until I said that I would put the proposal in our 1966 election manifesto. There was then a speedy change of heart, and we got the period down to 30 years.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the 30-year rule has already been side-stepped to a certain extent by the Grossman Diaries? In the light of those diaries, for the sake of posterity and historical accuracy, will the right hon. Gentleman incorporate in the next edition of his own work, "The Labour Government 1964–70; A Personal Record", the various corrections needed to make good the many errors pointed out by Mr. Crossman, particularly in the events relating to the 1967 devaluation?

If I were to deal in any subsequent edition of my book with some of the points raised in the recent publication in The Sunday Times, the book, already very long, would be even longer. Those who are in a position to know about these things know that many of the attributed statements took place on occasions when they could not have taken place, in places where the relevant people were not present at the time. I am sorry to say that a high proportion of the attributed quotations were either made by Mr. Crossman himself or were not made at all.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet decided their attitude towards the conclusion of the renegotiation of British membership of the EEC.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are satisfied with the outcome of the EEC negotiations.

asked the Prime Minister if the Government are satisfied with the outcome of the renegotiation of the EEC entry terms.

I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friends to the statement which I made to the House on 18th March.

I welcome the Government's recommendation. On the question of ministerial responsibility, is there any truth in Press reports that the Government are considering allowing Ministers to speak from the back benches in the debate on the renegotiated terms after Easter?

I do not comment on Press reports. Most of those that I have read this week on the subject have proved to be wide of the mark, particularly the prognostications about the comradely meeting yesterday to which reference has already been made. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to have to face formidable competition from a regiment of Ministers speaking from the back benches if he should seek to catch the eye of the Chair in the debate.

How can my right hon. Friend possibly be satisfied with the renegotiations, considering that they have signally failed to reassert the authority of Parliament, and in view also of the signal failure to reassert control over our own steel industry?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend's diagnosis. I did not say in my statement of 18th March that I was completely satisfied. I said that there were certain things that we had hoped for that we had not obtained in the form we had sought, but that we had broadly achieved the purposes of our renegotiations. I also said that in the light of the improvements we had obtained in the renegotiations and certain changes in the Community during the period of the renegotiations, I believed that continued membership was the best thing for Britain, Europe, the Commonwealth and the wider world.

I know that the Prime Minister will not comment on Press comments, but will he make an explicit statement about what arrangements he has made for dissenting Ministers in relation to supplementary answers given from the Dispatch Box and any comments they might make to the House?

I have already answered a question on this matter and have set out the position. When the right hon. Lady has studied it, I shall be glad to answer any more questions which she may have on the subject. All Ministers speaking from the Dispatch Box will reflect Government policy in this matter.