asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of copper has been sold by his Department since 1st January, 1954; what profit or loss was made on these transactions; and what proportion was exported.

Approximately 114,000 tons. This includes sales by the Ministry of Materials. Information about the profits and losses arising from Government trading operations in copper generally is published in the annual Trading Accounts for each financial year but figures for other periods and for particular transactions are not available. My Department has no information about the proportion of the metal exported.

May I take it from that Answer that no copper has been sold to be sent abroad by my right hon. Friend's Department since he has been in office?

I cannot answer that question, as I cannot tell what happens to the copper after it is sold.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what stocks of copper are now held by his Department; and at what price it was bought.

All the copper stocks held by my Department, apart from a small trading residue of 1,700 tons are held in the strategic reserve, and it would be contrary to well established practice to give any information about the size of this stock. The copper was purchased over a period of years at prices based on those ruling at the time of purchase.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with other Commonwealth Governments regarding the development of the mineral resources of the Commonwealth; and if he will make a statement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the policy of Her Majesty's Government for the development and exploitation of the mineral resources of the British Commonwealth and Dependencies.

We are anxious that important mineral resources of the Commonwealth and the Dependencies should be developed as far and as fast as is economically feasible. Mineral development was one of the subjects considered at the Commonwealth Economic Conference of 1952. Since then the Commonwealth Economic Committee has made a study of raw materials and expects to report to Governments within a few months.

Will my right hon. Friend press on with these studies as far as possible because it seems to be tremendously important for Commonwealth Governments to give a helping hand to enterprise of this kind? Would that not avoid uneconomic development of our resources, and ensure that the greatest possible use is made of them, where it is economic to do so?

I think that the report will serve a useful purpose.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether an interim report will be presented to the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers?

Not by that Committee; it will be separate.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the recent agreement on tariffs and trade will affect imports and exports of cotton yarn and cloth.

We have not for our part undertaken any reductions in the United Kingdom tariff on cotton yarn and cloth. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the concessions made by other countries affecting our exports.

Does that mean that the matter does not affect the vital problems

What it means is that we have not reduced our tariff on cotton cloth.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we are likely to have a debate on the recent negotiations at Geneva on G.A.T.T.?

No doubt that matter will be pursued through the usual channels.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that firms in the north of England are selling wireless and television sets on a hire-purchase agreement which provides that when the whole of the purchase money and interest is paid the property in the set shall remain in the retailers; and whether he will amend his hire-purchase Regulations to prevent this evasion of the spirit of the present Regulations.

The hon. Member would appear to be referring to hiring agreements. A control over hiring was introduced in February this year to supplement the restrictions on hire purchase.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not referring to a hiring agreement? I am referring to an ordinary hire-purchase agreement, where a man paid the whole of the purchase price in eighteen monthly instalments and then found that there was a small clause at the end which retained the ownership in the firm, namely, Lloyds of Manchester, to whom I have sent the relevant correspondence, and who admit that this was the practice they were carrying out? Will the Minister do something about it?

I think that we are at cross-purposes. I am anxious to give a fair answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question. I will have a word with him, and perhaps he will explain the exact point that he has in mind.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a recent change in Brazilian currency exchange rates has nullified the tariff preference negotiated for Commonwealth bananas; and what steps be proposes to restore the position.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given on 5th June to a Question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell).

Why does my right hon. Friend want to wait and see? This is a simple matter of arithmetic. The juggling in the exchange rate precisely equals the preference negotiated. Surely we are not going to wait until irreparable damage has been done to this year's sale of the West Indies banana crop before we take action?

This is a matter of arithmetic but not a simple matter of arithmetic. I would prefer to wait and see how these matters work out before giving any final answer.

This matter was raised last week, when we impressed on the Minister that it was one of urgency. Surely some action has been taken about it, and the Minister should be in a position to tell us what it is?

Brazil did consult the International Monetary Fund before making this alteration.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this banana crop will be coming on the market within a very few months, and if we wait until then it will be too late and the whole crop will be ruined, and our good faith will be very greatly prejudiced in the eyes of the West Indies Government?

I have these matters in mind.

It is no use the Minister saying that Brazil consulted the International Monetary Fund. This House gave approval to a Resolution which gave concessions to Brazil provided that she did not do anything of this kind, but, surely, now that Brazil has done it, we ought to take action against her?

I am bearing these matters in mind. I am aware of the effect that this step has on the preferential position, and I will take into account the observations made.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of new and second-hand Sherman tank spares authorised for export by his Department under Licence No. 17B/6431/55; to whom it was issued; on what date the first consignment under this licence left this country; when the order will be copleted; and the country of destination.

I do not think that it would be proper to disclose details about transactions authorised under particular export licences.

Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that the licence was issued for nearly £400,000 worth of new and second-hand Sherman tank parts, and that these have gone to Egypt? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that, will he say why we are being so helpful to a country which is so hostile to us on every occasion? Will he also explain why the Government did not sell the parts themselves at proper prices rather than sell them to a dealer at give-away prices?

This licence was issued in the ordinary way and under Government supervision.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is better to have British rather than Russian tanks in Egypt?

Why?

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he has given consideration to the report entitled "Overseas Economic Surveys, United States of America "; and what action he has taken or proposes to take;

(2) what specific action he proposes to take on the suggestions contained in pages 148, 149 and 150, in the Report entitled "Overseas Economic Surveys, United States of America."

Yes, Sir. This survey was published by the Board of Trade and given full publicity, and I am glad to see that it received a good report in the Press. My Department constantly advertises the Government services available to exporters to the United States and the export opportunities which exist there.

Does the President not admit that this is an excellent document, and do we not owe it to those who compiled it to take more resolute action than we appear to have done up to now? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that large-scale industry takes advantage of the excellent Government service provided through the export credit scheme, but that smaller-scale industry has no means of taking advantage of it? Is it not up to his Department to see that the service is given freely to all?

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the compli- ment that he pays to the Board of Trade on the provision and advertising of documents of this kind. I think that they serve a useful service.

But what resolute action is the President going to take in order to see that the advice in the document is carried out?

We produced the document and we circulate and advertise it widely, but, of course, we cannot undertake those rigorous forms of control which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. We are limited to advice.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what specific action he proposes to take in regard to the suggestions made in page 146 of the Report entitled "Overseas Economic Surveys, United States of America," about china and earthenware in regard to the demand for simple patterns and shapes.

The British Pottery Manufacturers Federation is aware of the suggestion referred to by the hon. Member. Action in regard to it is a matter for the commercial judgment of the firms concerned.

In view of the serious economic position of this country, has not the time arrived when it should be Government responsibility to stimulate a drive in industry, and are not the proposals contained in this report complete confirmation of those of us who have been advocating this suggestion for a long time? Will the right hon. Gentleman now give an undertaking that he is going to put some drive behind proposals of this kind?

The suggestion referred to was that there was a new demand for simpler patterns and shapes and that it is here that the possibility of expanding the United Kingdom market may lie. That is probably true, but this is a matter for the pottery manufacturers to pay attention to rather than for the hon. Gentleman or myself.

asked the President of the Board of Trade at what date the Government decided to defer consideration of all proposals for the provision of new Government-financed factories in Development Areas.

No decision to defer all these cases has been made. As indicated, however, by my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in a reply to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on 5th June, the Government have over the past few months been considering their policy with regard to the rate of expenditure on factory building under the Distribution of Industry Act and have arrived at the conclusions which my hon. and learned Friend stated.

Can the President tell us when they arrived at that conclusion, and why they did not announce it to the House? Can he really assure us that in the case of important new schemes for public investment in new factories in areas which really require new industries he is not going to veto it just to show a financial saving?

The Government announced their policy properly through my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 5th June. If economies are to be made, as I believe they must be, then that means some adaptation in policy in order to achieve those economies.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that it is an economy to refrain from building a new factory for some important industry in an area that needs it?

In the Board of Trade the principal expenditure is in the form of materials for all types of building. If economies are to be made, alterations or adaptations of policy must also be made, and I make no apology for economising in Board of Trade expenditure.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of herrings were to be sent to Czechoslovakia under the 1955 barter agreement; and what proportion has actually been sent.

Six thousand barrels of cured herrings and 1,000 tons of klondiked herrings. Two thousand three hundred barrels and 100 tons, respectively, have so far been exported. The balance will be made up from the 1956 catch.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has amended the open general licence affecting the export of works of art.

The licence was amended in order to raise from £100 to £500 the value at which works of art may be exported to non-sterling destinations. The value limit is now the same for the non-sterling area as for the sterling area.

May I ask my right hon. Friend what particular reason he has for doing this because, surely, he does not want to encourage the export of works of art?

In principle, I think the same level should apply to both the sterling and the non-sterling area, and this change merely brings them into line. The difference was originally used for some exchange control purpose.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that imports of apples in the coming season, especially those from Italy, do not prevent home growers from disposing, at fair prices, of their crops which are expected to be unusually large.

The purpose of the restrictions on imports of apples from non-sterling sources is not to keep up prices but, as I have explained on previous occasions, to limit expenditure of foreign exchange.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this year, next year, and probably the year after that, more and more new apple trees will be coming into production as the result of growers having answered the appeal of previous Governments to increase their output, and will he make sure that, as a result of the growers having answered the appeals of other Governments, they will not be let down by this Government?

So far as quota restrictions are concerned, I am, of course, limited to quotas for balance-of-payments reasons.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the substantial increase of imports into Burma from Communist countries during the past twelve months, to what extent these have replaced Burmese imports of British goods; and if he is satisfied that everything possible is being done to ensure maximum trade between the United Kingdom and Burma.

Burma has substantially increased her purchases from Communist countries as a result of her barter arrangements with them. Some part of these purchases would not otherwise have been made at all from any country, but as regards the rest the purchases do affect Burma's imports from us and from other countries outside the Communist bloc. As the greater part of Burma's rice sales are still made for cash to the free world, we have recently made representations to the Government of Burma pressing them to permit the import under non-discriminatory trading conditions of at least a fair proportion of Burma's requirements of all classes of goods.

Can the Minister state whether, in fact, those representations have had any effect and, if so, what is likely to be the result in the coming twelve months?

I hope that they will have an effect.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that aircraft engines of Czechoslovak manufacture are now being imported into this country, he will remove the embargo on export to Czechoslovakia of modern machines for the manufacture and testing of aircraft engines.

Two small piston engines have been imported from Czechoslovakia. The export control covers machines for the manufacture and testing of jet engines. These items are not really relevant to one another.

Is the Minister not aware that these imported Czech engines appear to be very attractive to manufacturers of small aircraft in this country? That seems to be an indication that the aircraft industry in Czechoslovakia is in a fairly good state. While recognising that the right hon. Gentleman personally is not responsible for all the nonsense of these Regulations, will he not at least express a hope that they will soon be made a little more rational than they are now?

Without going into the bigger issues involved, I would say that I do not think the fact that we have imported two small piston engines is really relevant to the question whether we put a strategic control on machines for testing modern jet engines.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions are now imposed upon the export of agricultural tractors to China.

Agricultural tractors are on the China embargo list, but licences will be granted in appropriate cases under the exceptions procedure.

Is the President aware that there are indirect restrictions, due to the bad allocation of steel, which are doing a great deal of harm to our export trade, and will he look into that aspect of this problem?

There is no allocacation of steel by Her Majesty's Government.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the increase in the importation of radio, radiogram, and television cabinets from Western Germany in 1955, compared with 1954; and whether the quantity has further increased this year.

These cabinets are not specified in the Trade Returns.

Is it not a fact that a certain number of these articles or commodities are coming into this country? Would the President say why they are able to compete with production of the same kind of goods in this country, even though there is this 25 per cent. tariff upon them?

I am sure that there are some coming in; but there is, I think, a 20 per cent. ad valorem tariff, which seems an adequate protection for the British manufacturer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of the gold deposited in this country by the Czech Government and subsequently handed over to the Hitler Government of Germany; what restitution is now being made to Czechoslovakia; and what repayment is being demanded from the present German Government.

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to gold which was held by the Bank of England to the order of the Bank for International Settlements, and dealt with in 1939 in accordance with the latter's instructions. After the war, the Czechoslovak Government claimed that as a result of this transaction about 23,000 kilograms of Czechoslovak monetary gold—worth about £6 million at 1939 values—came into the possession of the Reichsbank. As a signatory of the Paris Reparation Agreement of January, 1946, Czechoslovakia accepted the method of restitution of monetary gold laid down in Part III of the Agreement, and has since presented claims on this basis to the Tripartite Gold Commission. The last part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Surely, having regard to our responsibility in this matter originally, whatever the expediency at the time, does not the Chancellor think that some restitution ought to be made somehow to the Czech people?

Since that time, there has been an agreement, made in 1946. Negotiations are now going on as a result of that agreement, and I think I would prefer, in accordance with practice, not to make a statement while the negotiations are going on.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the debt incurred by Czechoslovakia to this country for the maintenance and equipment of Czech forces who fought with us; and whether, in view of our failure to enforce reparations on our former enemies, he will now forgive this debt.

Nearly £201 million, of which £6½ million was written off as mutual aid. In September, 1949, as part of a comprehensive settlement covering outstanding claims between the two Governments, the Czechoslovak Government undertook to repay the balance of about £14 million over the period 1949 to 1965. I see no reason why the obligation to pay this sum should be waived.

Having regard to the fact that, generally speaking, we have been, shall we say, fairly generous to our former enemies, should we not be a little more generous to these people, who were fighting with us, in connection with debts which they incurred in this country due to the fact that we were equipping forces which were fighting with us?

Of course, we try to be generous, but this agreement was freely made in 1949, four years after the war. There is a period of sixteen years for payment, and I think it would be reasonable to expect that this obligation should be continued.

It is scarcely a question of the period, but rather one of principle.

The question of principle is that the Czechoslovak Government agreed to pay, and I have no doubt that they will carry out their promise.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the original Dawes and Young loans subscribed by this country to Germany; how much has been repaid; and whether any repayments are now being made.

The amount subscribed by this country was £12 million in each case. Dawes and Young bonds to a face value of £2,841,400 and £825,700 respectively have been repaid. No repayments of capital are at present being made, but current interest is being paid. Sinking funds for the redemption of the loans are to be set up in 1958.

Is it the intention that Germany should repay these loans, or that she should continue to evade her responsibilities?

No; the Germans are paying interest, and I have no reason to suppose that they will not carry out their obligation to set up the sinking funds, as agreed, in 1958.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what change of practice there has been in the treatment of one-man companies with regard to Surtax direction since the statement of practice made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on 22nd July, 1948.

There have been no changes in the general practice to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

Does the Chancellor not think that, after all these years have elapsed, it would be a good thing to review this practice, especially the exemption from direction for Surtax of those companies which made no dividend distribution before 1947?

Of course, all these matters are kept in review, but the practice has, so far as I know, worked satisfactorily since it was first laid down by the Chancellor in that year, 1948.

While it has no doubt worked satisfactorily and no wrong practices have been taking place, is it not very surprising that no payment whatsoever of dividend should be regarded as a reasonable practice, after all this length of time?

There are very varied considerations in that. The practice is carried out by the Special Commissioners in accordance with that arrangement which was made. So far as I know, there has been no accusation that there has been any malpractice under it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether one-man companies formed or registered after 22nd July, 1948, are treated in the same way as similar companies existing before that date, when the provisions of Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1922, or Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, are applied.

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) on 25th April last, of which I am sending him a copy.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for sending me a copy of that reply, which I have not seen, may I ask whether he appreciates that there is a feeling among small businessmen who are trying to plough back their profits for the expansion of their businesses that there is some discrimination against companies formed since 1947, and that those formed before 1947 do, after all these years, have an unfair advantage?

This is a highly complicated question of tax procedure. If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to have a talk with me about it, I should be very happy to hear his views.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the rate of increase of industrial production over the past twelve months; and whether he will make a statement.

The rate of increase in industrial production has slowed down in the past twelve months because we have made it harder to sell at home in order to stimulate greater efforts to sell abroad. We need changes in the pattern of production and employment, and production is bound to slow down in some industries while these adjustments take place.

Will the Chancellor not agree that the policies of his predecessor and of himself have brought us to a more easily recognisable plateau in this respect than in regard to the index of prices? Will he further tell us whether this stagnation is a sign that the Government's policy is working or a sign that something is wrong and that something new has to be done?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has any right to regard this as stagnation. There are adjustments to be made. If we are to switch, by whatever method, be it one form of control or another, from production for home to production for export, there must be these adjustments.

Does the Chancellor still stand by the views expressed by the Economic Secretary when I questioned him about this matter at Budget time, that he still expects this year to show a net increase in industrial production in this country?

I do not remember, perhaps because I was not present, what the Economic Secretary said; but I am sure that everything he said is very wise and is very likely.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what factors he attributes the recent weakness in the exchange rate for sterling.

Quotations of the official rate for sterling since I took office have been as follows:

Will the Chancellor not agree that the figures which he has just given to the House are highly confusing, and will he not further agree that there was, a week or so ago, a weakness, widely commented upon, both in the official rate and in the transferable rate? Does he attribute that primarily to short-term factors, such as his own Newcastle speech, or to more worrying underlying factors?

I am accused first of putting down the rates by my speeches, and then of putting them up again. I wish it were as easy as that.

While we all welcome the improvement in the rate of sterling since this Question was, in fact, put down—I do not attribute any causality to that—is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it has been widely said during the last week, among Conservative newspapers as well as in other quarters, that some of these very expensive speeches we have had to suffer recently in this country have been responsible for a feeling here and abroad that the Government are abdicating all sense of economic responsibility?

I am sorry for anything which may happen between the time a Question is put down and when it is answered. Those are, of course, inconveniences to which we are all subjected. If the right hon. Gentleman can bear a little good news—I have to be careful, because I have to keep a balance between being too optimistic and too defeatist—I would tell him that reserves have risen during this period I referred to—since December—by £89 million. If he can bear a little more good news, I will tell him that if he would read the tape today he would see the best trade figures which have been announced for a very long time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the financial loss last year at the Covent Garden Opera House; and whether he will make an addition to the grant to the Arts Council for the specific purpose of increasing the subsidy to the Opera House.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will increase the subsidy to the Royal Opera, Covent Garden, from £250,000 to £350,000.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the report of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, which indicates that this undertaking needs £100,000 a year more as a grant-in-aid from the Government if it wishes to continue to function at the present standard; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Covent Garden Opera House has made losses every year since it reopened after the war. Towards covering these losses £1,778,000 has been provided from public funds, and a smaller sum has been borrowed on overdraft.

The grant-in-aid which I propose for the Arts Council this year is the amount shown in the Estimates, £885,000. It is for the Arts Council to divide this sum as it thinks best between Covent Garden and the many other organisations which it supports. I understand that the Arts Council has decided, in the fullest knowledge of Covent Garden's financial position, that its grant to Covent Garden this year should be £270,000, which is £20,000 more than was given last year.

But does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that we treat the arts in this country in much more beggarly fashion than do many other countries whose budgets are smaller than ours and who have less pretensions to culture than we have? Will not the right hon. Gentleman increase the grant to the Arts Council this year with the definite proviso that it should go towards the upkeep of Covent Garden?

No, Sir. I think that this system of using the Arts Council as the governing machinery is one which has worked since the war, and on the whole is the best one. The amount that can be given in any one year has always to be a matter of discussion, but I am happy to feel that this increase is coming to Covent Garden from the Arts Council.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Provinces there is a very firm feeling that far too large a proportion of Arts Council money is gobbled up in London? Will he give the Arts Council advice to ensure that these resources are properly distributed over the whole country?

That shows how wise is was for me and my predecessors to use the Arts Council to distribute this money.

Further to the point about provincial interests, is it not a fact that English art has a right to be encouraged?

Yes, Sir, and it is, to the extent that £885,000 can encourage art.

Mostly to bring German artistes to Covent Garden.

Whilst agreeing that Covent Garden must inevitably run at a loss, may I suggest that some inquiry should be made into the artistic direction of Covent Garden? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many who believe that it is not being directed as well and as shrewdly as it should be?

Yes, Sir, but I still rather wonder whether the Treasury is the right body to conduct that inquiry.

I do not want to strike any jarring note, but if people do not want to pay to go to see these things, why should the country give money away to support them?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, in view of the continued strain to which the economic system is subject, he will now introduce legislation to enable Her Majesty's Government to control less essential building developments;

(2) whether he will now reinforce his existing policies for the support of sterling by introducing control over less essential imports.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to strengthening the Government's financial and economic policy, he will now reintroduce building licences.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation to enable him to bring private building under control.

I made my position clear in the debate on the economic situation on 20th February. In my view these matters should be decided on practical and not on doctrinal grounds. This is the principle of the Middle Way, from which I have never swerved.

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware, in respect of building licensing, that despite the harsh measures which he has introduced, in many directions, of monetary control, there is still an overload on the national economy, caused partly by inessential building? If he were to apply practical considerations to the matter, would he not apply control to that rather than to essential building which he has stopped?

There are practical considerations, and those are the ones that I have tried to apply. There is a balanced argument here. I have heard a great deal about the expenditure on petrol pumps, for example, but the actual expenditure in the last year of control was £4 million and last year was £7 million. When it is remembered that there are twice the number of cars that there were in 1939, there is a certain argument there. The total of private and miscellaneous building amounts to about 8 per cent. of the whole, but I am not denying that it might be convenient to have this weapon in our internal armoury under certain conditions. All I say is that I try to judge these matters on a practical and not a dogmatic basis.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in our present rather difficult economic situation it is not justifiable to continue to build such things as offices, dwelling-houses and petrol pumps without any limit whatsoever? Would it not really be desirable to take powers, even if they were very moderately exercised, to prevent completely wasteful expenditure?

Yes, Sir, but as my hon. Friend knows, and as I have said, while I do not deny that it might be useful to have this weapon in our armoury, it would require legislation and, so far as I can see, we have quite a lot of legislation to get through.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some newspapers which support the Government have reported that he is considering reintroducing building licences as an aid to his economic and financial policy? Are we to take it that the right hon. Gentleman's replies are a denial of those newspaper reports?

I have referred to what I said in the debate on 20th February, and I stick to it. I said then:

"I do not think that either side of the House was very much enamoured of the building control. But I have not ruled it out of my thoughts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th February, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 46.]

Import licensing was the subject of a separate Question on the Order Paper, answered, I think, by the President of the Board of Trade; but is the Chancellor aware that, although there has been a small improvement in our gold and dollar reserves, that improvement has taken place during an extremely favourable time in world markets in which other countries have been increasing their reserves very much faster? Would the right hon. Gentleman not think it right in these conditions, facing difficulties perhaps later in the year, to introduce at any rate a small measure of import control in addition to what he already has in operation?

One has to remember that about one-fifth of our imports are today subject to licensing restriction. When I am told that this is a kind of contest between laisser-faire and dirigisme, it is worth while remembering that one-fifth of our imports are controlled, that one cannot borrow £10,000 in the market without Treasury permission and that hire purchase is controlled. We have a large measure of control, as a modern Government must have, over parts of the economy. We must remember also that internal controls are one thing, but when we consider the question of plunging in, regardless of all that has been done in the last ten years to free trade and to liberalise trade throughout the world, I think that it is a very big question as to whether we should rashly jump into import rationing on a wide scale.

Whilst welcoming at any rate this change of tone on the part of the Chancellor, if not a change of heart, may I ask whether he will recall that, when this point has been raised before, his colleagues have always replied that any amount of import licensing would involve rationing, even when we have proposed controls over the most inessential dollar imports? Since the right hon. Gentleman now maintains, as he admits, this panoply of control over imports, without rationing, will he not consider the directions in which he could profitably expand it?

My position is exactly as I said on 20th February, when we debated this matter at great length. If I had the slightest temptation to take a more optimistic view because of the rise in reserves and the benefits of the trade situation, I should be corrected by he eternal pessimism of the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to give details of the manner in which the Government intend to save £100 million in the current financial year.

No, Sir; but I hope to make a statement shortly.

When he makes that statement will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that there is no cut in the National Health Service, such as is being rumoured or suggested, particularly in view of the fact that we have had an independent Report which stated that the Health Service should not be cut but that there should be some extension of financial support to it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the depreciation in the value of the £ is affecting the Health Service just as it is affecting everyone? In view of that fact, should there not be increased financial support for the Health Service?

Of course I shall take carefully into account all that the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it was necessary to bring 800 candidates for driving and traffic examiners appointments in the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation to London for interview by the Civil Service Commission between 28th September, 1955, and 12th April, 1956, including Scottish candidates who had already passed their driving tests in Edinburgh.

Interviews in Edinburgh and London were considered to be the most efficient and economical method of selection for a large number of candidates scattered all over the country. Between the dates mentioned 661 candidates were interviewed after taking their driving tests. Thirty-eight of these were candidates in Scotland, thirty-three of whom were interviewed in Edinburgh. Five candidates, whose driving tests in Edinburgh could not be held before the interview board there had finished its sittings, were seen in London.

Does not this Question reveal a wastage which is rather typical of the times in which we live? Would my right hon. Friend not take another look at the matter, and realise that great cities such as Birmingham, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Glasgow are quite capable of interviewing candidates for jobs of this nature?

I will certainly look into it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the loss in sterling which will accrue to the sterling area on the take-over by the Texas Oil Company of the Trinidad Oil Company, what action he proposes to take.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the proposed acquisition by a United States company of the assets of a British oil concern.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he would arrange to acquire a majority holding in Trinidad Oil Company Limited, along the lines of the holding in British Petroleum;

(2) if he will use part of the resources which the Government have in British Petroleum Company Limited to finance a British group or consortium to take a majority holding in Trinidad Oil Company Limited.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to prevent the sale of the shares of the Trinidad Oil Company to United States interests.

The matter is still under consideration, but I hope to make a statement shortly.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the estimated loss to the sterling area, if this transaction is allowed to go through, is from £2 million to £3 million a year, and will he consider this matter with the utmost care before permitting any scheme to be carried through which seeks to nibble away at our already slender reserves?

All these questions, of course, must be most carefully considered, and they are being considered, with a lot of rather complicated issues which surround this whole problem.

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has offered to lease the plateau of stability to the Texas Oil Company?

No, I think that will be so fruitful that I prefer to keep it in Britain.

Now that the Chancellor has had more time to look more carefully into this matter, is he satisfied that he has the powers to veto this deal if he decides that it is in the national interest to veto it? While he is considering all the possibilities—and we hope that he will come to a decision very quickly indeed—will he bear in mind the feasibility of making it possible for the company to pass into the control of the Government of Trinidad, or, if there is to be a take-over bid, into the hands of the British Petroleum Co.?

These matters are being considered.

Would it not be a good thing to debate this matter before a decision is taken? Is the Chancellor aware that, for example, the Texas company is the most volatile partner in Aramco, without whose money anti-British propaganda in the Middle East, in the Persian Gulf, would not be financed? Should not that be taken into account during the negotiations?

All these matters, of course, are being considered, but I do not think we should gain by a debate before the Government are able to set out their decision.

Has my right hon. Friend any information whether other Trinidad oil companies are in the same predicament?

I do not quite know what the word "predicament" covers, but all these relevant factors have to be taken into account with the Government of Trinidad and with other Governments concerned, and that explains why it is not unreasonable that it should take several days, at any rate, before the Government reach a conclusion on so large an issue.

Would the Chancellor answer the question which I put to him? Is he satisfied that he has the powers, if necessary, to veto this deal, and if so, do the powers belong to the Government in respect of the articles of association and the lease or in respect of the 1947 and 1952 Acts?

There are various powers governing different parts of the deal, which are of a very complicated character. Those powers I shall set out quite precisely when I make my statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of revenue derived from Customs duties on articles declared and undeclared, respectively, by passengers into this country during the last available year; to what extent evasion of payment has risen or fallen; whether he is satisfied that large-scale smuggling has declined in recent years; and the general policy pursued by Customs officers in respect of small objects of small intrinsic value brought to this country by passengers from other countries.

The Customs duties collected on articles declared by passengers and crews arriving in this country during the year ended 31st March, 1956, amounted to about £830,000. Separate figures are not available for undeclared articles seized from passengers.

Although in the nature of things the extent cannot be determined, there are indications that preventive action has contributed to a reduction of large-scale commercial smuggling in recent years.

Customs officers have discretion to pass duty-free small souvenirs and other articles of little value imported by passengers.

In view of the last part of his Answer, can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether some kind of criterion exists in determining what should be the approximate value of those commodities, in order to avoid in future any embarrassment on the part of passengers who bring such objects into this country?

I think that that would be difficult to do. I think it is the experience of hon. Members that on the whole the Customs officers carry out their duties with great courtesy and great success.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much British capital is invested in the development of Canadian oil resources; and what proportion of this figure is represented by the holdings of the Trinidad Oil Company.

I regret that I cannot make available information obtained in confidence about a particular company, but the total approved investment in the development of Canadian oil resources was of the order of 110 million dollars from 1950 to 1956.

While, in view of what my right hon. Friend said a moment ago. I do not wish unduly to press him at this stage, may I ask whether he is aware that, while it is obviously desirable to encourage American investment in the Commonwealth, there are many of us who feel that that should not be at the expense of existing British investment, particularly in countries like Canada? Is he further aware that, while the total United States investment in Canada is about four times the British investment, in oil it is about a hundred times greater? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, in view of that, agreement to a proposed transfer of this kind may be likened to killing the goose which lays the golden eggs, and saying, "It does not matter, for we have a goose dinner"?

While I had to answer the Question in the form which I did, because it is the established practice to refuse to make available information obtained by reason of the need to secure approval under the Exchange Control—I think the House realises that it would be very inconvenient if special requests were made available—I can say, without breach of that, that out of this total of 110 million dollars, the amount of capital invested by the company in question in Canada is a very small percentage of the whole.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional steps he is taking to strengthen the defences of the £ sterling.

I have nothing to add to my Budget speech of the 17th April. There are some indications that our general policies are beginning to succeed. The important thing is that they should be allowed to operate freely, and that we should not relax our efforts. Voluntary restraint of incomes will serve us better than compulsory restraint of imports.

Is it not the lesson of 1955 and of the other runs on sterling in recent years that it is wise to act early? As the Chancellor tells us that he has no dogmatic objection to control—to the obvious dismay of his supporters—would it not be wiser to take now some of the additional powers which have been suggested today?

I do not know on quite what experience the right hon. Gentleman draws as to the necessity to act early. Perhaps, he has rather bitter memories. However, I should say that it is exactly what I and my predecessor have done: we have acted early, and if we have, as I think we shall have, the general support of the country, we shall act successfully.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think his belief that the Government's economic policy is succeeding is still impressing the minds of the Conservative electors of Tonbridge?

The right hon. Gentleman is a very old friend and colleague, and I should have thought that was not worthy of his best.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about the proposed legislation on Crown lands.

Yes, Sir. A Bill on this subject will be presented to the House this week. The Bill will set up the board to manage Crown Lands which was recommended by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve's Committee. It will also make the Lord Privy Seal and the Secretary of State for Scotland responsible to Parliament for the Crown Estate in future.

May I wish the Prime Minister many happy returns of the day, and ask him whether, in the case of the administration of the Crown lands, the Government have reached a happy outcome from the difficulties which faced them?

I should riot like it to be thought that my birthday had anything to do with the change concerning Crown lands. It might be rather embarrassing.

asked the Prime Minister when he expects that the Report of the Medical Research Council Committee on the medical aspects of nuclear radiation will be available.

The Report of the Medical Research Council Committee is being published as a Command Paper, and will be available in the Vote Office later today.

This Report is an important document; it deals with complicated matters which will require careful study by all concerned. For this reason, it is obviously not possible at this stage to make detailed comments on its contents. The Committee's findings about radiation from such sources as the diagnostic use of X-rays will require much detailed consideration with the appropriate scientific, medical and industrial bodies. To the extent that Government Departments are concerned, we are arranging for the necessary studies to be made as soon as possible.

Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to see that a popular summary of the results is issued, as these documents are very technical and complicated, and difficult for the layman to understand?

I hope I should not be asked to draw up such a summary. It would be a very difficult task for anyone who has seen the document. Of course, this is not a Government publication, in the sense that it is done by a body entirely free from Government control or influence. For that reason, it would be difficult to do as my right hon. Friend asks. Perhaps I may suggest that if, after a study of the Report, the House considers what further elucidation, if necessary, it needs, we will then consider what we can do to help.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will submit proposals to the forthcoming Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers to amend the Royal Marriages Act, 1772.

It it contrary to normal established practice to discuss in advance the agenda for Commonwealth Conferences. I wish, however, in this instance, to say that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom do not intend to submit any such proposals at the forthcoming Conference.

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that this antiquated law unfairly restricts the personal freedom of many people now some distance from the direct line of succession, and that if any changes are to be made, they ought to be made now, before any more instances of individual difficulty arise.