asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, under Clause 12 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which permits members to institute import restrictions to stop a serious decline in their monetary reserves, he will limit the import from the United States of America of all goods which can be obtained from the Commonwealth, Empire, or other non-dollar sources;

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to limit less essential dollar imports; and by what means;

I have nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 4th December and to the reply I then gave to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt).

Will my right hon. Friend agree that, by restricting our imports for dollar currency, he would be freeing trade rather than restricting it so far as the rest of the world is concerned? Would he consider discussing with the tobacco companies whether they might not now begin having a higher percentage of Imperial and Commonwealth tobacco in the cigarettes smoked in this country?

With regard to the general question, as I stated previously, I am sure that making world trade the greatest possible amount is in the longterm interests of this country. As to the dollar question specially, more than half our dollar imports are under control and restriction, and, broadly speaking, they are nearly all essentials. With regard to the special point that my hon. Friend raised, that is another question which has already been answered in the House.

In view of what he has said, will my right hon. Friend again look at the question of what are essentials and what are not, because a lot of non-essentials appear to be coming in to the disadvantage of essentials required by industry?

I will look at it, but I think the facts are not so and that, broadly speaking, it is the essentials that we import.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the question about Commonwealth tobacco had already been answered, but does he not appreciate that it has been unsatisfactorily answered? This is something which could save dollars very quickly.

Yes, Sir, but it is not an immediate problem.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the oil imports from the United States of America will be paid for in sterling or dollars.

In dollars.

In order to preserve our gold and dollar reserves, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to arrange with the American Government to pay for our oil imports in sterling?

No, Sir. I tried to deal with this matter in my statement of 4th December. As I then adumbrated, I have taken a number of measures to protect and support sterling. I cannot add at the moment to what I then said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement upon the economic policy to be followed by Her Majesty's Government in order to maintain industrial production in the present situation, with particular reference to the motor car industry.

Some interruption of industrial production must be expected in the next few months as a result of the interruption in our supplies of oil. The Government are already taking all the steps required to keep this disturbance to a minimum.

Of course, that phraseology sounds all right here. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer really aware of what it means in terms of human suffering, for example, in Coventry? Does he know that this very weekend I was talking with men who have been out of a job for at least four months and to one out of 20 applying for the same job? What will the Chancellor do for people like that?

I have tried to answer the Question. This is a very broad topic, which really needs debate. Perhaps it would be wiser to deal with it as a whole in the debate on the subject arranged for Thursday.

Is the Chancellor aware that I tried in the last debate to ask some questions, to which I got no answer? Without being alarmist, is he aware that the situation in Coventry in the next six months will be as bad as it has ever been? Will he wait until it happens before finding something to do?

In the next debate, since I shall not be speaking, perhaps my right hon. Friends will be able very successfully to answer the questions.

If the Chancellor told us the Government policy today, could we not debate it more easily on Thursday?

I have described the Government's broad policy.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increased charges resulting from the increase in the price of petrol, he will make a further statement upon their effect on the cost-of-living index.

I would refer the hon. Member to my statement in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill on 10th December.

Is the Chancellor aware that his statement that all this will raise the cost of living by less than one-third of a point is hardly correct? Will he tell the House whether, when he spoke of one-third of a point, he was dealing with transport charges affecting the delivery of milk or bread, or the charges on fuel affecting bus fares?

I gave the figures of one-half a point for the direct effect of the duty and one-quarter of a point for the indirect effect. Those figures are well supported and, I think, accepted in economic circles.

What is the difference between direct and indirect if the person concerned has to pay it?

By direct effect, I meant the actual increase on motoring and so forth, and by the indirect effect, when it came to be distributed throughout the economy.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if in view of the effect of the petrol tax on the cost of living and on costs of production, he will give an assurance that every effort will be made, irrespective of the date on which the flow of oil is restored, to reduce such tax at the earliest possible date, meeting the difference either by economies in Government expenditure or by transferring the incidence of taxation to those parts of our economy where it will be less harmful.

This matter was fully discussed in the debates on the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Temporary increase) Bill, and I cannot add anything to what was said in those debates.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this tax, imposed as it is at the starting point of so many of our activities, is very inflationary, and that the best way to reduce the cost of living is to reduce Government expenditure and not increase Government taxation?

I should accept the second part of my hon. Friend's supple- mentary question as a general proposition, but I think that the first part is mistaken, and I am supported by very high economic opinion.

Would not the hon. Member's very cogent argument have gained in force if he had voted against this Measure last week?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have made to stabilise and reduce the cost of living in view of the inflationary effect which the 1s. 5d. per gallon additional charge on the price of petrol will have on our national economy.

In our recent debates it has already been explained how limited the effects of this increase are likely to be on the cost of living. I do not think any special anti-inflationary measures are necessary on this account.

While I cannot agree that it is limited, is the Chancellor aware that, while the Government seem to have some wonderful ideas about how to put up the cost of living—a little bit here, a little bit there—we should like just one idea on how to reduce it?

One remarkable feature of this year is how extremely steady the cost of living has been.

Is it not a fact that the cost of living and the standard of living are ultimately determined largely by the people in industry and that there are severe limits to what any Government may achieve, as was demonstrated by the failure of the many expedients tried by the late Labour Government?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that all the petroleum companies have in the past few months been making profits, paying large dividends, and issuing share bonuses; and whether, in view of this, he will take such action as may be necessary to suspend further progress with the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Temporary Increase) Bill, and replace it by a direct petrol tax on the profits and dividends of these companies.

As I pointed out in my speech on the Second Reading of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Temporary Increase) Bill, I examined very carefully all possible alternatives and came to the conclusion that a temporary increase in the duties on hydrocarbon oils was the proper course.

Is not the Chancellor aware of the fact that all these companies have been paying fabulous dividends, and that even on the day that he announced it they paid a 5 per cent. tax-free dividend? All these companies are handing out free issues of shares. Surely this is a better way of dealing with the matter than by putting a tax upon the ordinary individual?

No, Sir. I think that, upon consideration, the House would feel that a differential tax upon a certain industry would be very bad in principle. It would lead to demands for reduced rates in respect of industries which were not doing so well. As everyone knows who has studied the oil situation in past years, the profits of the oil companies —including those in which Her Majesty's Government have a very large holding—have been, to a very great extent, ploughed back to finance the great capital development that has been done and that still lies before us.

Yes, but let us forget for the moment the fiscal aspect of the matter. Is the Chancellor in a position to lay before the House any costings upon which the increase of 5d. per gallon payable to the wholesaler was agreed to by the Minister?

That is another question. Perhaps it could be directed to the Minister concerned. I am satisfied that the proposal made in the Question would not be a sound financial proposal.

If I put down a Question, can my right hon. Friend give an indication of what sort of contribution is made by oil companies, in the shape of taxes, towards our defence programme and the cost of the social services? May I assume that the hon. Member would rather see the companies making losses and defaulting on their dividends?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the market value of the United States securities at present held by the Treasury.

As I said in my statement on 4th December, between $750 million and $1,000 million.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what figure the value of dollar securities held by the Exchange Equalisation Account and other public authorities has fallen since October, 1951.

I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind in referring to "other public authorities." So far as the dollar securities held by the Exchange Equalisation Account are concerned, the value has not fallen, but, on the contrary, has risen, since October, 1951.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange to publish monthly, together with the figures of gold and dollar reserves, the total value of dollar securities held by the Exchange Equalisation Account and other public authorities.

It is not the practice to give details of the assets of the Exchange Equalisation Account. I gave a broad indication of the present value of these securities in my statement on 4th December, but I cannot agree to go any further or to adopt the present suggestion.

Despite his little sulk a few minutes ago is the Chancellor not aware that this Question and others in a similar vein are designed to help in presenting to the world the amount, size and movements in the various forms of reserves which supplement the gold and dollar reserves? Is not he aware that this suggestion has been put forward in a number of highly respectable financial circles, and does not he feel that it would be better to publish these figures rather than that guess work should be indulged in about them?

No, Sir. The practice, which, I believe, has been followed ever since the war, and is a sound one, is to give from time to time broad indications, as I have done, but not to give precise figures or to give figures at regular intervals. I should be very glad to discuss this problem with the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that this is sound practice, from which it would be a mistake to depart.

Is it now the view of the Government that the state of our reserves should be judged not solely in regard to what are commonly called gold and dollar reserves as such, but also in regard to a number of other considerations, of which this is one? If that is so, ought not we now to have a little more information than we have had in the past?

I will consider that, but there are great difficulties. If the hon. Member, the right hon. Gentleman and I discussed the matter together, I believe that they would reach the same conclusion as I have reached.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total dollar value of all goods, other than those supplied under military aid schemes, shipped to this country since October, 1951, from dollar areas under arrangements which provide for the supply of dollar goods against payment in sterling or in other ways which avoid the payment of dollars.

I assume that the right hon. Gentleman distinguishes in his Question between equipment and materials primarily for defence purposes purchased by H.M. Government with dollars provided by the United States Government and other commodities the sterling counterpart of whose dollar cost is applied, by agreement with the United States Government, for various purposes. In answering, I am taking into account only the latter. The sum up to 8th December, 1956, including the cost of dollar freight, is $214 million.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question, which was very difficult to frame, was meant to cover, for instance, tobacco, raw cotton and other commodities supplied under the American Government's surplus disposal arrangements and so on, paid for in sterling? Would I be right in assuming that the Chancellor's figure really relates to that kind of commodity shipments?

These are very complicated transactions. I took it that that was what the Question meant, and we have done our best to add up the kind of transactions which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why civil servants in the Government Chemist's Department and the Chemical Research Department of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research have not been allowed to enrol in the appropriate sandwich courses in institutes of further education

I am not aware that any civil servants in the Departments mentioned have been refused permission to enrol in these courses. Arrangements were recently made to enable Departments to provide financial assistance to certain categories of scientists who attend such courses, and I am now considering whether these facilities should be extended to staff employed in chemical laboratories.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to my information, the only facilities which have so far been provided are for engineers and physicists; that members of the two Departments mentioned in the Question approached their superiors for permission to enrol in this course and they were flatly refused? In view of the shortage in the higher qualified ranks of chemists, will this matter be reconsidered?

I am well aware of the great value of these courses, both for industry and members of the Civil Service. We started with physicists, and we are now considering an extension to chemists.

For the information of the House, may I ask why the D.S.I.R. has to investigate sandwiches? Is it something to do with the British Transport Commission?

I am bound to say that I had to make some inquiries, but I understand that "sandwich courses" is the term for courses which industrial firms and other employers, including Government Departments, allow their newly-joined apprentices to take with the object of getting better technological qualifications. [HON. MEMBERS: "We know that."] I am bound to say that I did not know they were called that. The whole House will feel that, for both industry and the Government Service, they are of great value.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reintroduce the investment allowance, possibly on a discriminatory basis.

I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

Will the Chancellor not agree that the present level of investment in this country is highly unsatisfactory? Will he not also agree that there is real danger that the measures arising out of our present difficulties will affect the level of investment in 1957, 1958 and 1959?

The hon. Member will remember that we discussed this at some length in the debates on the Finance Bill. I made three special classes to whom this benefit should apply. They were scientific research assets, shipbuilding, and certain classes of fuel-saving equipment. I think that that was generally acceptable to the House. I will certainly note and consider the hon. Member's suggestion about whether these classes should be increased.

Now will the Chancellor answer the question which the Economic Secretary failed so lamentably to answer last week? Do the Government want to see capital investment in British industry in the coming year go up or down?

I do not think I should answer a question couched in that rather offensive form about my colleague.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what undertakings about British credit and fiscal policy have been given by him to the International Monetary Fund in return for the loan from the Fund announced on 4th December.

The drawing and stand-by arrangement approved by the Fund was not conditional on any undertaking by Her Majesty's Government about their fiscal and credit policies. The Fund, however, noted, in approving the United Kingdom application for a standby arrangement, my statement of 4th December, in which I announced our intention to take all necessary action to strengthen the internal economy and to keep internal demand under restraint, in particular by the maintenance of the control over credit.

Is there, then, no foundation in the Press reports that such undertakings had been given by the Chancellor?

None, Sir. The position is exactly as stated in my Answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what interest rate will be payable on the loan from the International Monetary Fund announced on 4th December.

The arrangement with the Fund falls into two parts, a drawing of U.S. $561·47 million, and a stand-by agreement of the equivalent of U.S. $738·53 million. On the drawing, we pay an initial service charge of ½ per cent. and charges which, if the drawing is taken for three years, are equivalent to an average annual rate of 1·52 per cent. On the stand-by, we pay a charge of¼per cent. per annum.

Can the Chancellor say what is the interest rate on the further loan from the Export-Import Bank?

No, Sir, because that is still under discussion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will be the owner of the special account into which he proposes to pay the waived interest on the United States and Canadian loans of December, 1945 and March, 1946, pending agreement to the waiver by the United States Congress.

This question is still under consideration, and I am therefore at present unable to add to the information I gave the House on Tuesday. 4th December.

If the Chancellor does not yet know whether this special account will be in the ownership of the British Government or the American Government, how can he claim that he will not be in default on this loan after 31st December?

Because we have not yet reached 31st December.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members on this side of the House would not look too favourably upon the Government's seeking a further loan from the United States at this time?

The Question is related to the waiver agreement, which has been under discussion between the two Governments for two to three years.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he now estimates that the proposed economies of £100 million will be effected in the current financial year.

Apart from certain defence items, I know of no reason at present why the savings on the particular services to which I referred in my announcements should not be effected. For defence, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), on 22nd November last.

Is the Chancellor aware that, in accordance with the promise he made on 25th October, he has still to announce another £6¾ million worth of economies to bring the total up to this fictional £100 million? When will he let us know—or is he just satisfying the need to the extent of 93 per cent. of his original promise?

If all promises were satisfied to that amount, it would not be too bad.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the negotiations of the British Government for a dollar loan.

No, Sir. Talks with the Export-Import Bank have only just begun, and there is nothing further I could usefully say at present.

May I at least ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that, before any decision is come to about such a loan—which some hon. Members on this side of the House would not welcome—he will put it before the House?

No, Sir, I am afraid that I could not give that assurance. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that in these negotiations we have in mind many of the problems which arise, and I hope that it will be possible to get what we want in the way in which we want it.

Is the Chancellor sure it is wise to contract all these new dollar loans without having made any reductions in less essential dollar imports?

No, Sir. These are lines of credit. Taken as a whole, they fortify the position, but the extent to which we have to draw upon them must depend upon circumstances, and the extent to which we must draw upon this or that will depend, again, upon the judgment of the authorities at the time.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at such a time a loan from the United States in order to enable British people to continue seeing American films and continue smoking American tobacco would not be welcome to many people in this country?

I should like my hon. Friend to distinguish between this and what he will persist in calling a loan. A "loan" means a fixed sum of money at a fixed rate of interest for a period of time. This is a line of credit which we hope to obtain and use if we have to.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this line of credit involves some moral obligation on the part of the debtor country to observe the policies of the creditor country, and that some of us are getting just about sick of following continuously under the chaperonage of America?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that, in the event of assistance being sought from the Export-Import Bank, either directly or through the United States Government, no agreement will be given to any condition which might be detrimental to the interests of Commonwealth primary producers in the United Kingdom market.

In accordance with the requirements of the Export-Import Bank Act, any assistance obtained from the Export-Import Bank would have to be spent on the purchase of United States goods and services, but it would not be the policy of Her Majesty's Government in consequence of any such borrowing to interfere in any way with the rights of importers to purchase Commonwealth primary or other products so that no question of detriment to these interests can arise.

That is all very well, but is my right hon. Friend aware that we have had some experience of this in the past? Will he bear in mind that the operation of Mutual Security Aid has been in many cases most detrimental to the interests of Commonwealth producers?

This is another problem. What we hope to do here is to obtain the possibility of drawing temporarily for commodities which we cannot get from any other source.

Whether he calls it a loan or credit, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that what he is doing is borrowing money?

If there is an obligation on us to spend any money we borrow in the American market, will the right hon. Gentleman take some precautions to ensure that there will be some guarantee that the market prices will not be raised against us during the lifetime of the loan?

What would be financed from this line of credit would be particular deals at particular times if we found it necessary to draw on it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what relationship he envisages between the proposed European common market and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

While a European free trade area would doubtless strengthen the economies of all the members of the North Atlantic Alliance, it is premature to consider what, if any, institutional arrangements should exist between such an area and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Yes, but is not my right hon. Friend aware that on the tape report of the Foreign Secretary's statement to N.A.T.O. on the grand design, the common market of Europe—

indicated dissent.

On the tape record of the Foreign Secretary's speech to N.A.T.O. on the grand design the common market was mentioned as one of the things to come under N.A.T.O.

I think that can hardly be accurate, since the common market refers to the Messina Powers, the six Powers, and we are not responsible for and have no control over them. I think the probable reference was to the European free trade market, or area, which it is hoped to build round the six Messina Powers, not to the common market of the six Powers.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but will he take another look at this, because in The Times report on the following morning point No. 2 was altered and was quite different from the point No. 2 mentioned on the tape the night before as being the point No. 2 which the Foreign Secretary had made?

What we are really considering is a future European free trade area if it is organised—the wider body within N.A.T.O. I think one should say that it is hoped to work with the European free trade area through the machinery of O.E.E.C., in which, of course, the Transatlantic countries are represented.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the cost in dollars to this country, during the last period for which he has figures, of United States films and United States tobacco, respectively.

In the first nine months of 1956, 20 million dollars and 79 million dollars, respectively.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on his discussions at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council on the subject of defence expenditure.

In the discussions in Paris last week, I drew attention to the review of the United Kingdom defence effort which Her Majesty's Government were making in the light of the economic position of the United Kingdom and of the changes which should be possible on the introduction of new weapons. I stated that the United Kingdom could not continue to accept the adverse effects on productive investment in the United Kingdom and on the balance of payments of the defence effort on the present scale. The review which we are making will, of course, take account of the new directive for future military planning which the Council approved last week.

Was there any prospect of having this solution? Is it not a fact that the German coffers are bulging with surplus dollars while we are scraping the barrel to find enough to keep our troops there? Can the Chancellor give some idea of the percentage deduction in defence costs of which he is thinking?

I should like notice of that. With regard to negotiations with the German Government, we made representations, an agreed arrangement was made, and the negotiations are just about to start.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Bonn Government announced on 12th December that no funds would be available for the payment in the coming financial year of support costs for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces stationed on German soil; and what steps he is taking to avoid, as a consequence of this decision, a substantial increase in the burden of defence expenditure being carried by the British people.

Following discussions with the German Government, negotiations on this subject are to begin in the near future.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall come better out of these negotiations than we did out of the negotiations on this matter last year? Can he make it clear to the Germans that, unless they are prepared to make a substantial contribution to the cost of keeping these four divisions in Germany, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to withdraw them, and thus ease our economic position?

All these questions were made as clear as I was able to make them, both at the meetings of N.A.T.O. and in the discussions with the German Government. I think that they have been broadly accepted as equitable and reasonable.

But we still pay.

Since we have warned the Government for some years about the strain on our economic system of this excessive defence expenditure, and since we warned the right hon. Gentleman last April of the ruinous nature of the agreement he made with the Germans on this matter, is he now telling us that it was not until he saw the economic effects of Suez that he realised how improvident the Government have been in this expenditure?

No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman had better await the result of the year's outcome before he discusses the effects—ruinous or otherwise —of last year's agreement with Germany.

In view of the very unsatisfactory character of our foreign balance situation, is it not an extraordinary thing that the Prime Minister should ever have made this agreement without considering the financial consequences?

There are two quite separate problems. There is the question of our contribution to N.A.T.O., in which I hope we shall continue to play a part. There is the other quite separate question, which takes two forms: the short-term problem of local costs across the barrier of the exchanges while the German armies have not really been built up, and the problem—which we also discussed with N.A.T.O.—of the long-term problem which must result if the alliance is maintained—as I hope it may be—where troops of one country are at the demand of the commander-in-chief stationed in the country of another.

Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman recalls that, when we debated this matter on 18th November, 1954, my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the Opposition took the Government to task for not clarifying the financial position of support costs beyond the financial year then in question, and that on that occasion the Government gave no idea that we should be faced with such heavy costs as we are bearing this year?

No, Sir, I do not think this arises until next year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider extending the pension provisions of the Millard Tucker report on the self-employed to employees who are not covered by superannuation schemes.

Sections 22 and 23 of the Finance Act, 1956, which provide tax relief on premiums paid for retirement annuities, apply to employees who are not covered by superannuation schemes in the same way as they apply to self-employed persons.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the Annual Report, to 31st March, 1956, of the Tate Gallery and to the expressed desire of the Trustees of that gallery to secure a purchasing grant of £20,000 notwithstanding the fact that of the, approximately, 4,000 pictures now in the Tate Gallery only, approximately, 1,200 are on public exhibition; and if he will make a statement of his policy on this matter.

Yes, Sir, and I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the statement I made in the debate on a Supplementary Estimate for the National Gallery on 19th March last, to which I can only add that I should not wish to anticipate next year's published Estimates.

As a matter of good policy and common sense, does the Minister not realise that these pictures should be handed over to some gallery that is ready, able and willing to exhibit them publicly, and that not to do so places the Trustees in the invidious position of not being able to carry out their trust to exhibit the pictures publicly?

I do not think that the Trustees feel in an invidious position. I am not sure that the hon. and learned Member is aware that several hundred of the other pictures are already on loan and on public exhibition.

While not wishing to enter into the very interesting controversy taking place between the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and the Financial Secretary, will the right hon. Gentleman give the most favourable consideration to the request of the Trustees that they should have further funds, and will he assure them at the same time that they may allow some of the pictures which they have, and which they are not able to put on exhibition, to be used in the provincial galleries where they would be of great value?

I said during the debate on the Supplementary Estimates that I was proposing to undertake a further review of the position against the time when the economic situation improves. I should like the right hon. Gentleman and the House to know that there are already about 300 pictures from the Tate Gallery on loan and on exhibition in provincial galleries and elsewhere.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are literally hundreds of small galleries in poor parts of the provinces which would welcome the loan of some of these pictures at little or no cost to the Treasury?

The Trustees have power to lend. I would suggest that the managers or trustees of the galleries the hon. Member has in mind should approach the Tate Gallery Trustees and see whether or not a loan is practicable.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury what proportion of the pictures forming the Lane Bequest are now on exhibition at the Tate Gallery.

Of the 39 pictures forming the Lane Bequest, 25 are now on exhibition in the National Gallery and two in the Tate Gallery; four are in the National Gallery and eight in the Tate Gallery reserve collections, where they may be viewed on application.

In view of the rather unhappy history surrounding this bequest, would not it be possible to make a gesture whereby, if not part of the collection, perhaps the whole of it, might be shared with Ireland over an agreed number of years?

We have received no suggestion from Dublin for some time for any loan of the pictures. If such a request were received, I am sure that the Trustees would consider it.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the number of local authorities in London and Middlesex who have protested to him against the Government decision to abolish the housing subsidies for general needs, together with the high interest rates for housing loans.

Two.

I should like to ask the Minister to consider these protests. I know that the Feltham Council has protested, because it has a waiting list of over 1,600. Though the Minister does not think that there is a acute housing shortage today, may I invite him to come any month to my advice bureau at Feltham to hear of the heart-breaking experiences of those who seek accommodation?

The hon. Member should have addressed those remarks to me during the course of the debate last week when the House in its wisdom decided to approve this Order.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the Report of the Committee on Synthetic Detergents.

Since the Answer is rather lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for at last doing something, may I ask him whether he can state whether, in view of the evidence that detergents can be harmful to hands during washing up, and also when dishes are not rinsed in clean water, he proposes to take action to ensure that manufacturers will place a warning to that effect on the containers so that housewives, and husbands who help them, will be protected from possible dermatitis?

That is a different question.

It is all part of the same thing.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the concern felt by the Rugby Rural District Council and the Warwickshire County Council regarding his decision in the case of Mrs. Warren's bungalow in Princethorpe Woods; and when he will be able to receive a deputation from those two local authorities upon this matter.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the concern felt by the two authorities. He will arrange for a deputation to be received when he has decided another appeal from the same neighbourhood.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that the local councils do not think that the other cases he mentioned are at all comparable to the Warren case, which is unique? The Minister himself has disallowed the initial decision of the inquiry. Further, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the councils quite honestly believe that he is merely using these other cases as a pretext in order to fob them off?

There is no question of the local authorities being fobbed off. I have stated that my right hon. Friend will make arrangements to receive a deputation, but it would be quite wrong for there to be even an impression created that at a private interview matters involved in an appeal pending had been discussed with the Minister.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the proposed meeting between the heads of Governments of the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

asked the Prime Minister what communication he has had with President Eisenhower during the past week with a view to arranging a meeting.

I recognise the value of the suggestion, but I have no statement to make at present.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to seek to re-establish relations between the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government on their former basis of confidence and co-operation; and, if so, will he repudiate the anti-American sentiments contained in the Motion on the Order Paper which is signed by more than 100 of his supporters?

I do not know about anti-American sentiments, but I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that is my desire, and that is very well known to be my desire by the Administration of the United States.

While welcoming the dissociation by the Prime Minister from the Motion signed by 120 of his so-called supporters, may I ask him if he will make it quite clear that the problems of this country cannot altogether be left for solution to discussion between President Eisenhower and Mr. Nehru?

In reply to the first part of that question, I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not ask me to accept his somewhat involved preliminary conclusion. In reply to the second part, certainly so far as this country is concerned our position in respect of meetings and discussions is well known to the United States of America.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Motion referred to represented very widely-held feelings in this country?

I was really only trying to deal with the Question on the Order Paper, which was in reference to a meeting, and I think I have answered that clearly. I think that the conclusion I have put before the House is the correct one.

Perhaps the Prime Minister would deal with the other matter in a meeting which I understand is to take place later upstairs.

The right hon. Gentleman should not chortle too much in advance.

asked the Prime Minister if he will replace the description Secretary of State for War by Secretary of State for the Army.

I recognise the purpose behind my hon. Friend's suggestion but the change would almost certainly involve legislation and I think it would be better to leave the title as it is.

Would the Prime Minister consider transferring the title of Secretary of State for War to the First Lord of the Admiralty?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to announce the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the Report of the Select Committee on Anticipation of Parliamentary Debates.

Yes, Sir. I would first like to express the thanks of the whole House to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and to the members of the Select Committee for the care and skill which they devoted to their task and for the valuable report they produced.

As the Prime Minister has mentioned, there were consultations with us on this matter. We are, of course, in general agreement with the statement made by the Prime Minister, but there is one point on which I would ask him a question. He refers to an experimental period of about six months. It was our understanding that it would be for the rest of the Parliamentary Session. In fact, there is not very much difference between them. There is the end of July, and then, presumably, there will be the Summer Recess. I would like the Prime Minister to clear up this matter. Is it indicated that the arrangements for the suspension of this rule will continue for the rest of the Session?

I think the phase was "about six months", but I certainly would not quarrel with the view of the House if that view is that it would be better to go to the end of the Session. That would be quite a reasonable arrangement.

Does the Prime Minister recall that I was one of the original sinners who concurred in this but who quickly repented and confessed to the House? May I not only welcome this announcement but hope that the rule will never be restored, not even after the end of the Session?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has described himself as a sinner. At any rate he was in quite respectable company.

Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that the Committee was unanimous in its view that there ought to be the maximum relaxation, but was restricted by its terms of reference; and that members of that Committee will follow with great interest and good will the experiment now announced?

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind, in any further consideration he gives to this matter, that all the witnesses heard by the Select Committee, with the exception of the B.B.C., expressed the view that, if there was to be any limitation at all, they would prefer that it should be an express one approved by Parliament, rather than that the matter should be left to their own discretion? Are we to infer from what the Prime Minister said that some unofficial, indirect rule will still be operated?

The authorities concerned have gladly given their cooperation and agreement in this arrangement. That being so, it seems a sensible course that the House should give them this period of trial to see how it works out. I have some confidence that, like a good many things in this country, it will work out better in practice even though the theory of it may be difficult to describe in detail.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent events, he will take steps to initiate the calling of an international economic conference.

I do not consider that an international economic conference would be useful in present circumstances. The economic aspects of recent events are already under discussion in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the International Monetary Fund and other international bodies. Her Majesty's Government are also in constant touch with other countries, including other members of the Commonwealth and the United States.

Are there not economic problems in the world which lend themselves to international solution through a conference such as is envisaged in the Question? Would not the Prime Minister agree that the distribution of oil is a question of world-wide importance which should be discussed internationally and not be attempted to be solved unilaterally by one Power, or even by two?

I think that the hon. Gentleman raised this question with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who certainly did not exclude it, but said that at present he did not think it was opportune but certainly thought it worth keeping under consideration.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that no international economic conference can be a substitute for getting ourselves out of our economic difficulties by higher production, better quality and lower prices?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that ten weeks have elapsed since the crash at London Airport of the Royal Air Force Avro Vulcan bomber; that a comprehensive statement has not yet been made covering the circumstances of the accident; and whether he will have a study made of the procedure of inquiries into air accidents when both Service and civilian Departments are concerned.

I understand that Dr. Touch, who has been conducting the further inquiry, has submitted his report and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air is hoping to make a comprehensive statement on this accident before the House rises. As regards the last part of the Question, I am discussing this suggestion with my right hon. Friends but, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, there are obvious difficulties.

I know there are difficulties, but is the Prime Minister not aware that, among the general public and in the aviation world, there is considerable anxiety about the procedure, which is too lengthy, especially when matters affecting the safety of our principal airport is involved? Will he look very carefully to see whether the procedure cannot be speeded up?

I agree that there is anxiety and that the procedures take some time. With the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of these things, I think he will understand the reason for that. My right hon. Friend is to make a statement, probably on Thursday, and go into this matter in full detail. I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for that statement.

Is the Prime Minister not aware that there is considerable alarm among people who live around London Airport over the long delay in publishing the report of the inquiry or in the Secretary of State's making a statement? Will he bear in mind that the large population around London Airport is vitally concerned?

I do not know that is so, and I understand the reasons for that anxiety. When my right hon. Friend makes his report, which will be before the House rises—I have already discussed the terms of it with him—I think the hon. Gentleman will understand the reasons for the delay.

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the importance of maintaining friendly relations with the United States of America, if he will give an assurance that military bases will continue to be made available in Great Britain for the United States forces for as long as the mutual interests of Great Britain and the United States of America so require, and that every facility will continue to be given to the United States Army and Air Force authorities so that their forces will have the amenities and be treated with the courtesy due to the representatives of a great ally.

Yes, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has, in fact, been a great deal of criticism of America in recent weeks, with which not all of us on this side of the House concur? Will he take this opportunity of reaffirming that a firm and unbreakable friendship between this country and America remains one of the basic features of British foreign policy?

Would my right hon. Friend agree that when the British hydrogen bomb has been manufactured and supplied to the Royal Air Force, with the appropriate bomber types in association, there is then no need for the United States Strategic Air Arm to remain in this country?

While everyone regrets any anti-American feeling in this country, are not hon. Gentlemen opposite the last people to criticise, seeing that Socialism was financed by the American Loan and that all the thanks the Americans got from the Opposition was to be called "shabby moneylenders"?

On the whole, I think my answer was comprehensive and correct. It was just "Yes".

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the letter which he sent to the President of the United States of America, on or about 6th September, concerning Britain's intended action of using force against Egypt in connection with the Suez Canal crisis and also a copy of the President's reply to this communication.

I have nothing to add to the reply given on my behalf by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 13th December.

Will not the Prime Minister confirm or deny that such a letter was sent? Will he confirm or deny that threats were used long before any question of separating the combatants was concerned, and will he also confirm or deny that the reason why he will not publish the letter and the reply is that he was told that if Britain used force against Egypt we would have to go it alone? Will he confirm or deny that?

It has never been the practice to give any information about communications between Heads of Governments. I am certainly not going to start breaking that practice now.

In view of the fact that the President of the United States himself stated during a broadcast that his allies had wanted to use force on several occasions, does the Prime Minister not consider it desirable to clear up the matter from this end?

What has been stated by the President of the United States—I speak from recollection—and Mr. Dulles and by other people in this country, was that the use of force could not be excluded. That, I think, was stated in one form or another several times.

That is not the answer to my question: the President did not use that language at all. What he said was that or several occasions efforts had been made to get agreement about the use of force which had, in fact, been prevented by the other side of the Atlantic. Would it not be very much better if the right hon. Gentleman presented a White Paper to the House setting out all these facts in order that the reputation of this country might be cleared in the matter?

I am certainly not going to lay as a White Paper any documents exchanged between Heads of Government. That has never been done and would make all such discussion in future utterly impossible. To put our position fairly, I think the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) should be good enough to look at what I said in this House on 30th October. I dealt then very fully indeed with the American position, what our view of that position was, and the reasons for it. I do not think I can be expected to go beyond that.