asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much hard currency has been obtained so far during 1947 as a result of the Government's effort to attract tourist traffic.

No reliable estimate can yet be given.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the import-export gap, he will reduce the maximum currency allowance for Britons travelling abroad.

I would ask my hon. Friend to await tomorrow's Debate, when a statement on this subject will be made.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Treasury policy of encouraging our invisible export trade will be frustrated if this proposal is accepted?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the anomaly created and the hardships imposed upon a soldier, unable to get barrack accommodation, who has to pay Income Tax on the lodging allowance of 2s. 6d. a day; and if he will consider making some allowance to mitigate what soldiers consider to be a decided grievance.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to his question on the subject on 11th July.

Does not my right hon. Friend consider that 2s. 6d. a day for lodging allowance when a soldier, through no fault of his own, cannot get barrack accommodation, is really inadequate if he has to pay Income Tax on top?

If my hon. Friend will look up Command Paper No. 6750 of March, 1946, the whole matter is there set out very fully. What we have aimed to do, and what the House accepted at the time as a reasonable thing to do, was to try to bring the soldier into the same general position as the civilian with regard to both standard payments and Income Tax liability. This is one instance of that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether civil servants have to pay Income Tax on their lodging allowance?

I will certainly look into that.

If the soldiers are worse treated——

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a Question, I will give him the answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the fall in the value of Government stocks is continuing upon a substantial scale; and what steps he proposes to take to reassure both existing holders and potential purchasers as to the stability of such securities.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on 15th July.

Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether he considers that at present levels Government securities are a safe buy?

I might indicate a private opinion, but I think it would be a mistake to make it official.

Does my right non. Friend not agree that this recession followed immediately on rumours of a Coalition Government and that when Tory hopes are dispelled tomorrow, a recovery may be confidently anticipated?

Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer state whether there is any alteration in his cheap money policy or whether, taking the long view, it remains unaltered?

We shall have a Debate which will no doubt cover a lot of matters and I had better not give snap answers to such questions as that of the hon. Gentleman.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are firms of stockbrokers who have been advising their clients to sell their, securities and put the money on deposit in the bank? Is that not a contributory cause to what is going on in the City?

I have no doubt that a lot of advice has been given by a lot of stockbrokers and other people to a lot of clients and others, and no doubt it has been discordant in some respects because some advise one thing and some another, but that is not my official affair.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a number of ex-Service men have paid Stamp Duty on articles of clerkship out of their gratuities; whether, in view of the decision to remit this duty, he will refund the amount so paid by ex-Service men between VE-Day and the date of the remission of the duty; and what would be the cost of this concession to the Treasury.

The Finance Act authorises a refund where the duty became payable on or after 6th April last and there is no power to go beyond this. Figures are not available to show the cost of the concession suggested by the hon. and learned Member.

As the cost would obviously be very small, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be a gracious act to take power to make the refund?

We had long discussions—I forget whether the hon. and learned Member took part, but perhaps he did—on this matter when the Finance Bill was going through its final stages, and I did date back the allowance. The original proposal was to make it date from the passage of the Finance Bill. I dated it back, in response to requests from different parts of the Committee, to the Budget date. We went into it very fully. The Finance Act is now law and I cannot change it.

Does not my right hon. Friend recall that when we had the discussions on the matter on the Finance Bill, the suggestion was apparently made in some parts of the House that the Minister of Labour might consider whether the point involved could not best be covered by his Department? Has my right hon. Friend had any consultations with his right hon. Friend on that point?

I remember the suggestion being made, and we can certainly look into it. I cannot say more.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he accounts for the drawing of £74,441,000 from the dollar funds announced on 30th July; does he anticipate that withdrawals will continue at this rate; and how long does he calculate it will be before the U.S. Loan is exhausted.

I hope to deal with these matters in some detail in the Debate which opens tomorrow.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer satisfied that there is no possibility of leakage through the sterling area?

I would rather deal with this in a comprehensive way. I shall not seek to evade such questions as this, but it would be more convenient to the House if I dealt with the matter in the course of my speech.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he adheres to the answer he gave last Tuesday to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) saying that:

There has been no substantial change in the drain during the fortnight since 15th July. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 257.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is about the third occasion on which he has given this answer that he is not going to give information to the House until the Debate tomorrow? Could he say when he will speak in that Debate? It is important that the House of Commons should have as much information as possible on which to base its contribution.

That will depend upon when you are kind enough, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to speak, but the answer which I have given is the formally correct answer. I hope that influences may be brought to bear to enable you, Sir, to catch my eye—[Laughter]—to enable me to catch your eye at a comparatively early stage.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not highly improper that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should suggest that he hopes that influences will be brought to bear upon you? Would it not have been better if he had said that he proposes to try to catch your eye at a certain time?

I noticed that he withdrew the first suggestion very quickly.

Would it not be better if the right hon. Gentleman told us what time, so that we could be here?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the income from interest on the Soviet Loan Agreement of 1941; and what would be the effect of the Soviet proposal to reduce the interest rate to ½ per cent.

At present slightly over £1 million a year. After April, 1951, it falls sharply. The Soviet proposal would mean a loss of about £4 million over the whole period of repayment.

In view of the fact that this country lost a trade agreement that would have given us one million tons of grain, does my right hon. Friend think that this obstacle could not be overcome by another attempt to negotiate?

In the course of the recent trade discussions, there were a number of different points involved, and we did not feel that, on balance, we were able to accept the Soviet position.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will furnish details of the sterling balances held in this country by the State and nationals of every country on 15th July, 1946, and at the end of the week ending 26th July;

(2) if he will furnish information regarding the extent of our foreign trade credits and other external advances on 15th July, 1946, and 26th July, 1947.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the sterling balances, with details, held in London by the Governments and nationals of each country or State outside Great Britain on 15th July, 1947, and on 2nd August, 1947.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give details of the sterling balances held in London on 15th July, 1946, and on 25th July, 1947, respectively.

The collection of these figures, which involves securing and collating information from a large number of different sources, can only, in practice, be done at quarterly intervals.

If the Chancellor cannot give us any details now, can he at any rate give the House an assurance that there is no cause for apprehension in this connection?

I would hope not, but I would again prefer to deal with this matter in the course of the Debate.

That, again, is my point. Is it not possible for the Chancellor to give an approximation to the House so that the House may have an opportunity of making a considered contribution to the Debate tomorrow? Does the Chancellor realise the position of the House of Commons in this matter, where information will be given by the Government, very late in the Debate perhaps, and the House will not have an opportunity of considering it as it should do, having regard to the serious position we are in?

We will do our best to meet the convenience of the House as a whole in this matter, but the form of the Questions that I am asked—and I am seeking to give a direct answer to the Questions on the Paper—is such that, as between two dates both very close together and so very recent, it is really not possible to give figures such as are desired, because it involves collection from literally hundreds, if not thousands, of different sources, from great numbers of banks all over the world, and so on.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a detailed statement outlining the withdrawal in part or whole of food subsidies since January, 1946; and whether he will indicate to the House any proposed revision or removal of such subsidies contemplated by His Majesty's Government for the remainder of the current financial year.

As I explained in my Budget statement, I estimate this year an increase over last year's in the total of food subsidies. Changes in the selling prices of particular subsidised foods will, in accordance with the usual practice, continue to be announced from time to time by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food.

In view of the discrimination such a policy must tend to impose on working-class purses, would not the Chancellor seek to obtain the equivalent of these subsidies from increased taxation on distribution of profits, on Surtax and Death Duties, etc.?

That is very wide of the Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the interpretation put by His Majesty's Government upon Article V 3 (a) of the Articles of the International Monetary Fund in relation to the liabilities they have assumed under Article XIX.

Article XIX is concerned with the explanation of terms, and does not impose liabilities. I am, therefore, at a loss to understand the hon. and gallant Member's Question.

Would the Chancellor state whether all sterling contributed to the International Monetary Fund is convertible under Article XIX? Is it not a fact that under Article V 3 (a) that liability need not be assumed unless it be the policy of His Majesty's Government so to do?

These are really very technical questions to deal with by way of supplementary question and answer. I am most anxious not to give any misleading replies to the hon. and gallant Member. I have given my answer to his Question on the Paper, and I would prefer not to be drawn into technical replies without notice.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of gold now held in Norway and Czechoslovakia to the credit of the Bank of England under the payments agreements made with those countries.

None, Sir.

But can the Chancellor say how this is, in view of the fact that we have very favourable balances with both these countries on trading accounts and, under the payments agreements, gold should be laid aside under these conditions?

Each of these agreements provides that the other country may in certain circumstances obtain sterling against gold set aside in our favour, but these circumstances have not arisen in their case.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the convertibility liability incurred under the Argentine Payments Agreement to date".

The net current sterling earnings of the Argentine.

Will the Chancellor state what that sum is, in accordance with the Question?

No, Sir, I do not think it is advisable to state particular figures from day to day. I think it would be better to leave it.

If this sort of information is refused, how can the House ever understand what is happening on matters affecting our balance of trade?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now informed the Postmaster-General that it is no longer desirable to freeze a Post Office savings account standing partly or wholly in the name of a deceased person until non-liability to Death Duties of the latter's estate has been established.

This arrangement is required to protect the Revenue, but the net estate limit fixed by the Post Office regulations is being raised from £100 to £400.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this regulation does not apply at all as regards ordinary joint stock banks, and in view of his natural desire to increase savings in the Post Office, would he not give this matter further consideration with a view to removing this differentiation against those who invest their savings in the Post Office Savings Bank?

My hon. Friend has merely asked me about Savings Banks; he has not asked me about joint stock banks. If he will put a Question down, I will look into it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total costs and all expenditure, civil and military, incurred by His Majesty's Government in Palestine, Greece, Egypt, Austria and Germany, respectively, from June, 1946, to the latest date; and the total value of all loans, credits and gifts-in-kind to the same Governments over the same or approximate period.

I am having this information collected and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Would not the Chancellor agree that when these figures are published, they will show that this country has had more than its fair share in financing the recovery of law and order abroad, and that the more publication these figures have in the United States of America, the better it would be?

If my hon. Friend had put the Question down a little sooner, giving a little more notice, I might have had the information for today, but it requires a lot of collation of information. Particularly, I would expect that the answer to the first part of the supplementary question would be, "Yes, we have done our best."