asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the reason for the fact that, despite the quota for imports of Italian apples having amounted to £ 3 million, in both 1955 and 1956, and despite prices having been high in the period January to June, 1956, to which £2½ million worth of the quota applied, approximately 278,000 hundredweight more applies were imported in 1956 than in 1955; and what steps he is taking to ensure that a further increase does not take place this year to the unfair disadvantage of the home producers.

The quota of £ 3 million, of which £ 2½ million is for the period January to June, permits imports from a number of countries besides Italy. The quota was more fully used in 1956 than in 1955 being taken up as to about 95 per cent. Imports from Italy were a larger proportion of the total. The present quota is the same as for last season.

Is the quota always to remain the same, regardless of the size of the home crop? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the possibility, which I raised on the Customs (Dumping) Bill, of importers allowing into this country rather more than the quota and paying for the extra through items which are not under quota at all?

I have not yet considered the quota for next year. I am willing to consider the second point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Can the President give the House any estimate of the quantity or volume of home-grown apples available for sale now?

No, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the report of the Monopolies Commission upon the manufacture and supply of chemical fertilisers.

I cannot yet say.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Commission, in conducting its inquiries, can or will have regard to the conditions under which certain fertilisers are supplied from abroad, with special reference to potash supplies?

Yes, Sir. We hope the Commission will provide us with more information about the supply of potash fertilisers.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many agreements have been registered under Section 10 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956.

The Registrar has stated that about 1,200 agreements had been sent to him by the end of the first registration period on 28th February.

Can the President of the Board of Trade say when these agreements will be available for public inspection?

On 15th April, on payment of 1s.

Can the President say when he expects the Restrictive Practices Court to start functioning?

I cannot say that now because there is still quite a lot of work to be done.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why the statutory duties of the National Film Finance Corporation were allowed to lapse.

It was not found possible to introduce at an earlier date the Cinematograph Films Bill, which extends the loan-making powers of the Corporation.

Does not the President of the Board of Trade think that this is a very unfortunate example of the way in which the Government mismanaged the the Bill?

I am sorry that the Bill has been late, but the hon. Gentleman has his remedy in his own hands by helping us to get Government business more quickly.

Can the President amplify his Answer of last week and tell us now whether loans are to be made by the Corporation free of interest during the period of delay, or is the Board of Trade somehow going to reimburse producers forced into paying high interest against their will?

The total amount of interest involved is about £ 1,200, and we are taking steps to see that this is waived.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to ensure that as the production of Rhodesian tobacco of good quality increases United Kingdom imports of this tobacco will correspondingly increase.

United Kingdom manufacturers have told me they are willing to buy substantially increased quantities of good quality Rhodesian leaf as it becomes available.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish in HANSARD details of the goods for which he has refused import licences to British businessmen desiring to import goods from Eastern Germany, since October, 1956; and which of these items were allowed into this country prior to October, 1956.

With permission, I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the President give any logical reason why he should be cutting down this trade, when the West Germans, who also do not have political recognition of East Germany, are extending their trade at the expense of British businessmen? Is it not as well to get down to trade, irrespective of the politics of the matter, and not to allow politics to interfere with the extension of trade?

We should be very willing to see these barter agreements go through if the East Germans would keep their side of the bargain.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement upon the building of new factories and factory extensions in Wales during the past year; and his estimate of future prospects.

In 1956, 103 industrial development certificates for an area of over 6½ million square feet were issued for Wales. At the end of 1956, 66 schemes totalling 6¾ million square feet were under construction.

How does the first figure which my right hon. Friend gave compare with the figure for the previous year?

In 1955, 112 industrial development certificates were given for a total area of 2·3 million square feet.

Can the President give some more hopeful news about the introduction of industry to North-West Wales, where, as he is well aware, unemployment is running higher than anywhere else in Great Britain? Will he not consider extending the Distribution of Industry Act to this area, as was recommended by the Select Committee on Estimates twelve months ago?

That is another question, which I will consider.

asked the President of the Board of Trade for what trades it is necessary to import flick knives.

Fishermen, seamen, farmers, butchers and electricians.

Does not the potential danger of these knives outweigh their convenience in these trades? Why cannot ordinary knives be used?

The answer is that workers in these industries need to open a knife when their hands are extremely cold or when they can use only one hand.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these flick knives are carried to some extent by delinquent children and are often found on them when they are admitted to remand homes and are taken from them by the police? Are they not a real danger?

We are aware of that, and the steps which we have taken in giving publicity to the danger have had some effect.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why he has authorised the importation of 56,000 dollars worth of rum and 42,000 dollars worth of citrus fruits and juices from Cuba during 1957;

The purpose of the Trade Agreement of 1953 was to maintain the tariff concessions granted to us in the previous Agreement over a wide range of goods. These tariff concessions were further extended in the Agreement made at the end of 1956. In return we established token quotas, including those to which my hon. Friend refers, for certain Cuban products completely excluded from our market since the war.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the increased trade which took place in 1956, as compared with the previous year, has resulted in an increase in our adverse balance of trade with Cuba? Will he also give an assurance that the token imports of juices and citrus fruits are not meant to be the thin end of the wedge as far as the West Indies are concerned? Can he also answer my Question about which goods show the biggest increase in 1956 in exports to Cuba?

The adverse balance of trade is not as bad as it looks, because a large proportion of the sugar which we import from Cuba is refined here and then re-exported. I cannot say whether these token quotas will ever lead to anything larger at the present time. I think that many items of machinery, and particularly vehicles, contributed to the increase in British exports to Cuba.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why a variation was made in the reference to the Monopolies Commission respecting electronic valves and cathode ray tubes so as to preclude it from reporting upon the effect on the public interest of the conditions prevailing in the supply of those goods.

Under the original terms of reference the Report could not have been completed until a considerable time after the Restrictive Trade Practices Act came into operation. The terms of reference were, therefore, varied so as to avoid overlap with the functions of the Restrictive Practices Court.

Is not the Minister aware that he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on previous occasions explained that the Government were taking no action about this Report because the Commission had reported on the facts only, and would it not have been more straightforward for these answers to have explained that it was Government action which precluded the Commission from making recommendations apart from reporting on the facts?

I thought that was already well-known.

But is it not the case that, as appears from the Report, one firm in this industry is within the Government definition of a single-firm monopoly, and does not the President propose to do something about the practices of this firm, which are not, even under the new Act, matters for the Restrictive Practices Court?

I did not think that was so, but, if it is, I will certainly consider it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what record is kept by his Department of local changes in weights and measures regulations which have been effected through the promotion of Private Bills by local authorities; and whether he will state the number of local authorities which have promoted such Bills since the publication of the Report of the Hodgson Committee.

The Board of Trade keeps a record of all local legislation extending or modifying the provisions of the Weights and Measures Acts. Since the publication of the Report of the Hodgson Committee in May, 1951, 33 Private Bills containing weights and measures Clauses have been promoted by 32 local authorities.

Does not the fact that local authorities have found it necessary to promote legislation of this kind reveal that the national legislation is out of date and unnecessary? Ought not the Government, therefore, to take urgent steps to implement the proposals of the Hodgson Committee?

The proposals of the Hodgson Committee will be introduced in the form of legislation in this House as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent his efforts to persuade industrial firms to open factories in the new town of Peterlee have met with success.

I regret that no new industrial firms have decided to open factories in Peterlee since my reply to the right hon. Gentleman on 31st January, 1957.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what form his efforts have taken? Is he aware that the people of Peterlee are very worried about the situation, that the population is rapidly increasing, and that there is plenty of female and other labour available?

My information is that the latest figures show that there were 188 females on the books of the local employment exchange and that unemployment for the area was 2·6 per cent, which, although it might not content us, is not much above the average. [Interruption.] For Development Areas, it is not a bad figure. My officers, of course, draw the advantages of Peterlee to the attention of anyone they know who might consider putting up a new factory, but we cannot force people to put up factories there.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer the wholesale distribution of newspapers and periodicals to the attention of the Monopolies Commission.

I have no power to do so. The Restrictive Trade Practices Act provides for the registration of restrictive agreements and for their examination by the Restrictive Practices Court.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the circumstances in which a book on the Press by Mr. Randolph Churchill has been refused distribution by W. H. Smith and Sons, one of the biggest wholesale distributors in the country? Has his attention also been drawn to an incident in which a new Sunday newspaper was prevented from being published by monopolistic restriction in the field of newspapers Does he not agree that nowhere is freedom of competition and absence of monopolistic practices more vital than in the business of the publishing and distribution of newspapers?

Without my judging the merits of the question, I think the hon. Member will know that the Monopolies Commission can be seized of a reference only if one firm controls a third of the trade, and in the case of the book by Mr. Churchill that is not so. I do not know the case of the Sunday newspaper.

As the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, in the course of the proceedings on the recent Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, gave an explicit undertaking that newspapers came within the ambit of the Bill, can he tell us whether any agreements in this trade have been registered with the Registrar?

We have to wait until we know what are the 1,200 practices which have been already registered. We shall know that on 15th April.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will introduce the Measure promised in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to replace the existing emergency powers in respect of hire-purchase and hiring agreements and to regulate borrowing by hire-purchase finance companies.

The Government have decided that the second of these questions requires further study, and a Bill cannot, therefore, be introduced this Session.

Does the President realise that an enlightened Measure is becoming urgently necessary, as the seven Orders which he has issued in the last twelve months have caused progressive confusion in the hire-purchase trade, and the housewife is the principal sufferer?

I think that legislation is necessary, but I am not quite sure that it will go as wide as the hon. Gentleman suggests. This particular question is one of extreme complexity.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what fresh guidance he has given to industry, in the light of the Bermuda Conference, on the strategic embargo on United Kingdom exports to China.

None, Sir.

Does that mean that although British industry was asked to wait for the Bermuda Conference for further progress on this issue, absolutely nothing further has emerged from that conference?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make his statement.

Does not the Prime Minister ever consult the President of the Board of Trade about this matter? If that is not so, can the President at least give us an assurance that the Prime Minister will have something positive to say about it?

No, Sir. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should await the Prime Minister's statement.

Will the President's right hon. Friend also give the House the date when North Veitnam was included in the Chinese embargo? Will he see that this House is informed as to whether or not the Prime Minister raised at Bermuda this vital issue of British trade with China and North Veitnam being included in the embargo without information being given to this House?

That does not arise out of the original Question.

It very much does.

Order.

asked the President of the Board of Trade for what goods from the dollar area licences to import are still required; and what percentage of our total dollar expenditure is involved.

The main categories of goods subject to quantitative restrictions from the dollar area are as set out in the statement circulated with the Answer to the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) on 20th February, 1956, with the omission of sugar and pulp and waste paper. Imports of goods subject to the restrictions account for over 40 per cent. of our dollar import bill.

Is it not clear from that Answer that the humiliating need to ask to be excused, for example, from the repayment of the American loan is due to the Government's unwillingness to control dollar imports, which have jumped from 619 million dollars in 1954 to 853 million last year? Have we not enough headless missiles on the Government Front Bench without having to cadge more from President Eisenhower?

The goods that we get from the dollar area we need very badly, and even if we got them from somewhere else we should have to pay for them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, to say the least, it is bewildering to manufacturers engaged in the export trade to have their requests for the import of essential machinery 'turned down and at the same time to see Coca-Cola, Stetson hats and television films allowed to be imported?

I am looking into that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to stagger the rush of weddings that take place in March so as to claim Income Tax relief for the whole of the financial year, if he will give consideration to extending the period for three months during which the same relief can be obtained by those who prefer April, May, or June for the honey moon period or, alternatively, to allowing rebate of tax for twelve months prior to marriage whenever it takes place.

No, Sir.

But is not a spark of romance left in the breasts of Treasury Ministers and officials to inspire them at least to try to do something for young people to enjoy the beginning of the matrimonial state? Is not the Minister aware of the difficulties expressed by clergymen who have to marry so many of these people with indecent haste, when it is their usual custom to have a talk with the couples before they get married?

I am aware of the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but neither of his suggestions is a practicable way of removing them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the increase in consumers' expenditure on food between nearest convenient date to 1st January, 1952, and the latest convenient date; how much is represented by volume of consumption; and how much is due to the increase in prices.

Between 1951 and 1956, consumers' expenditure on food is estimated to have risen from £ 2,987 million to £ 4,376 million, or by 47 per cent. The increase in the volume of consumption, at 1948 prices, was rather Jess than 9 per cent., while prices rose about 35 per cent.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of new methods of avoiding stamp duties; and whether he will take the opportunity of the forthcoming Finance Bill to amend the Inland Revenue Regulations Act, 1890, so as to make stamp duties exigible.

Yes, Sir, but I have no reason to think that they are widely practised or lead to a substantial loss of duty. As regards the second part of the Question, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Has the hon. Gentleman studied the article to which I drew his attention in the Scots Law Times, showing that for some strange reason this tax, alone amongst all taxes, is not exigible and that people cannot be forced to pay it but can be fined if they do not pay? Would the hon. Gentleman not bring to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the serious state of affairs which might result and the need to act in time, instead of waiting, as on previous occasions, until there has been a considerable amount of tax avoidance?

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in referring me to the article which he has mentioned. I have studied it, and I have brought it to my right hon. Friend's attention.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increased petrol ration, he will reduce the additional Is. duty proportionately and maintain the yield at the same total.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce the duty on motor fuel forthwith in view of the now greatly increased quantity available for consumption.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) for what purpose he still retains the increased Is. duty on petrol, aviation fuel, and diesel fuel for road vehicles;

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the 50 per cent, increase in the petrol ration, he will now reduce by one-half the additional Is. tax on petrol.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the ending of restriction on the use of diesel oil for transport and the increase of 50 per cent, in the petrol ration, he will now remove the 1s. extra tax on hydrocarbon oils.

I will, with permission, answer these Questions together.

Is my hon. Friend denying that the yield from this duty so far is in excess of the loss of revenue, and is it not correct to say that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor can vary this duty at any time he likes?

The yield from this additional duty has not, during the current financial year, exceeded the estimate. The Act under which it was imposed provides a procedure whereby the additional duty may be terminated.

Is it not a fact that at present the saving in consumption as a result of petrol rationing is only 3 per cent, whereas the duty has gone up more than one-third? Therefore, the Treasury is making a substantial profit from the increased duty. Further, is it not a fact that bus fares throughout the country have had to be increased owing to the higher duty and, therefore, this is another burden imposed on the travelling public by the maintenance of this unnecessary tax?

It may be that at this end of the financial year consumption has run little below the normal level, but the fact remains that the purpose for which this additional duty was imposed, namely, to produce the same revenue as was estimated, will barely be achieved.

But is not the hon. Gentleman perhaps unwittingly misleading the House about this? Is it not a fact that the revenue from the petrol duty was already running below estimates before the decision of the Chancellor last December, and that all that has been achieved is that he has restored the shortfall in petrol revenue? Is it not a fact that, compared with the Chancellor's estimate of what he would achieve by this increase, the Treasury is doing very well indeed out of it?

No. I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that the extra yield from this duty since it was imposed has had the effect, as was anticipated at the time, of bringing the total yield for the year almost up to the estimated amount.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the psychological advantages of the early removal of this duty and the fillip that it would give to the whole economy?

Is not the Chancellor acting against the spirit of the Act in not reducing this duty by a proportionate amount of the increased yield that he expects to get in the next quarter?

I do not think that can be said, because the Act does not make it possible to reduce part of the extra duty at all.

In view of the complete lack of justification for maintaining this duty, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister took the opportunity of asking permission to answer a number of Questions together. Amongst those Questions, three are in my name. I have been trying to catch your eye so that I might put a supplementary. I hope you will let me do so, Sir.

I omitted to notice that the hon. Member was included in the category of Members whose Questions were answered. Mr. Grey.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable opinion in the country against the retention of the whole of this Is. duty? Will the Government take note of the fact that when the new allocation takes place the consumption will be only 10 per cent, below the pre-rationing level, and surely on that basis the Treasury could afford to make a proportionate reduction in the 1s. duty?

My right hon. Friend has taken note of the view which the hon. Gentleman has expressed, but the change in the ration will still not come into effect for some three weeks hence.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total Entertainments Duty paid by the spectators at the 1956 Football Association Cup Final, at which there were 97,000 spectators, the 1956 Rugby League Cup Final, at which there were 78,000 spectators, and the England v. Scotland Rugby Union match at Twickenham on 16th March last, at which there were 70,000 spectators.

It is contrary to established practice to disclose the taxation affairs of individual promoters of entertainments. I can say, however, that the Rugby football match qualified for exemption from Entertainments Duty.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that whilst the Football Association Cup Final collected £ 15,000 and the Rugby League Cup Final collected £ 8,500, the match at Twickenham collected nothing? Will the Minister try to help British sport by getting rid of this millstone which is around the necks of the clubs?

This is obviously one of the factors which my right hon. Friend is taking into account in his review of Entertainments Duty.

Since the hon. Gentleman told us last week what we already knew, that the yield is only £ 2 million, will he bear in mind the strong views held in all quarters of the House that this duty has long out-lived its usefulness and that the party to which I belong is committed to its removal at the earliest opportunity?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the examination of the effects of the decision on the case of Baddeley and Others v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue has been completed.

The examination of this question is now well advanced, but I regret that the conclusions cannot yet be announced.

Is the Minister aware that on 29th November, 1956, his predecessor assured me that he recognised the urgency of this matter? Is he also aware that the Glenboig Old People's Welfare Committee, and many committees like it throughout the country, which do wonderful work in bringing happiness to old people and easing their loneliness, are urgently awaiting this decision in order that they may be given charitable status?

I recognise the urgency, but this is an extremely complex legal matter and it is necessary to ensure that all aspects of it are studied before it is dealt with.

In view of the immense issues at stake in this most unfortunate reactionary legal decision, which cover almost the whole field of the voluntary social services, could my hon. Friend say whether, before the Government have finally made up their mind on any measures they may propose to the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared at an early date to receive a deputation from the national bodies in the charitable world so that they may express their views?

Yes, Sir. I am sure that such a deputation would be received either by my right hon. Friend or by such of his colleagues as might be the most appropriate Minister.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the iron and steel industry previously publicly-owned remains to be sold after the recent issue of £ 40 million shares in the Steel Company of South Wales.

About one-sixth.

In view of the enormous waste of public money incurred by making these issues to the public, amounting to £ 1,200,000 in the case of the Steel Company of Wales, and the probability that this industry will go back to public ownership at an early date, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency to postpone the sell-back to private investors of the remainder of the steel industry?

I do not accept any of the right hon. Gentleman's statements or assumptions. I think his' supplementary was more appropriate to his next Question but one.

If the Minister does not accept my statements, may I ask if he is aware that in the prospectus for the issue of this company's shares it was stated that the commissions and expenses relevant to that issue amounted to £ 1,200,000 of public money?

The point which I was not accepting from the right hon. Gentleman was that it was a waste.

Could the Minister at least tell us what contribution to the welfare of this industry is being made by these shareholders in return for more than £ 1 million which is being paid out to them? How does the right hon. Gentleman expect the country to take seriously the so-called economies in welfare milk and school meals when much more is being wasted in the form of extra money paid out to shareholders?

The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) was referring not to money paid out in shares but to money paid out in Stamp Duty and various other things.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the result of the recent public invitation for tender for £ 40 million shares in the Steel Company of South Wales made by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency.

Twenty-one thousand, five hundred and forty-nine applications were made for 45,740,900 shares. The applications from two companies for 2 million and 1 million shares, respectively, and for 248,500 shares made by the trustees on behalf of employees of the company were accepted in full. Other applications for up to and including 2,000 shares were accepted in full; applications for more than 2,000 shares were accepted to the extent of about 85 per cent.

In view of the fact these 21,000 people are now likely to be drawing millions of pounds a year from the resources of the Steel Company of Wales which could otherwise be used for improving the equipment of the company or the working conditions of its staff and employees, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what these 21,000 people are going to do to justify this and compensate for the obvious damage they will do to the company?

What they are doing is putting up £ 40 million of their savings.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is no new money concerned here? Does he not realise that this money was there before and only 3½ per cent interest had to be paid on it instead of the 8 per cent, which will now have to be paid out?

This money is recouping the Exchequer, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, whatever may be the opinion of the party opposite, we on this side are overjoyed that so many of these shares have gone into the hands of employees in the industry, and can he further say whether any applications were made by trade unions in this issue?

There certainly was a large number of applications from the employees. I cannot answer the second part of my hon. Friend's question.

Will the Economic Secretary say how many applications have yet been received from the employees for these shares?

I gave the total number of shares applied for and allotted.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any application was made to him under Section 18 (1) of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency to postpone the sale to private owners of the Steel Company of South Wales.

No, Sir.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman, as a representative of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, think it is desirable to save public money, and is he not aware that most of the £ 1,200,000 went in commissions to people who underwrote, and does he not regard that as a deplorable waste of public money to no purpose whatever and giving no possible advantage to the steel industry or to the public? In view of all those facts, will he not suggest to the Agency that it should not persist further in selling the remaining assets in its possession?

Parliament decided to denationalise the steel industry. We believe that the results have been good and have been of benefit to the country as a whole. Obviously, if one makes a public issue, certain expenses are involved.

But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, when the Bill was before Parliament, it was never suggested by anyone— there would have been a row in all parts of the House-that the expense of selling the industry back to private shareholders was going to amount to something between £ 5 million and £ 10 million, which is a complete waste? As this is a new factor in the situation, will he not use his influence with the Agency to stop it selling any more?

The terms are perfectly usual for issues. Anyone could have guessed what they would be.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) that this is the sort of process we hope will continue over a much wider field in the next two years, and he had better get used to it?

Is the Economic Secretary aware that these operations will be taken into account when the industry is renationalised?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that on one racecourse the owner has introduced a special heavy financial payment by off course bookmakers using her telephone service; whether he is aware that such a system operated by Mer Majesty's Government on a tax basis could earn revenue for Her Majesty's Government; and whether, in his forthcoming Budget, he will consider introducing a special off course bookmakers' betting tax on telephone services.

I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget.

Without anticipating the Budget, is the Financial Secretary not aware that every day of the week, other than Sunday, in the afternoons and evenings hundreds of thousands of pounds are turned over upon which no tax is paid? Will he at least consult hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House and on this, including myself, to give us an opportunity of explaining to him how he can get millions of pounds a year into the Treasury by just taxing these off-course bookmakers and thus avoid cutting the social services?

In preparing his Budget, my right hon. Friend will, naturally, consider all methods of fortifying the revenue.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of Mrs. Topham's attempt to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget, the "blower" service is working perfectly normally today without any payment to Mrs. Topham?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement concerning the rights of the German Federal Government to with draw the £ 75 million deposited under the agreement of 2nd March by the Bank Deutscher Laender with the Bank of England.

The arrangements made, while providing that under certain circumstances withdrawals may take place, ensure that these shall occur only in conditions agreeable to Her Majesty's Government.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say simply whether this £ 75 million is under our control or under the control of the German Government? I could not really follow it from his Answer. Further, can he say whether the nature of this and similar unusual additions to our gold and dollar reserves will be made clear when the figures are published?

On the question whether it is ours or theirs, the position is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that the German Government owes us £ 120 million. This is a deposit against the annual payments of £ 7½ million which they are due to make. It is a deposit, and, therefore, does not belong to us. On the other hand, the arrangement is that it will not be withdrawn in conditions which are not agreeable to us. As regards the showing of special receipts, I should like to examine that; of course, all these matters will come out in the White Paper on the Balance of Payments, and, no doubt, notifications will be made as and when it is received.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that our position as banker for the sterling area is not being weakened as a result of his refusal to consider reductions in dollar expenditure for less essential commodities in order to allow us to pay for our large oil imports from dollar countries without making further inroads in our already limited gold and dollar reserves; and if he will make a statement.

The strength of our position as banker to the sterling area depends much more upon our overall balance of payments than on our direct balance with the dollar area. The Government believe that the right course is to meet additional dollar expenditure on oil from the proceeds of the general increase in exports which it is its policy to encourage.

Is not this capitulation of my right hon. Friend to free trade and Liberalism almost too complete, and would it not be a good thing if, for example, we could limit the imports of Coca-Cola, to which reference has been made, in order that we could pay in part for this additional essential oil?

Questions about Coca-Cola should be directed to the Board of Trade.

To the Minister of Health.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the significant and very large increase over the last three years in imports into this country of, on the whole, inessential American manufactured goods, and, in view of the very serious position for the future of the sterling area now, does he not agree that the most important thing to be done to save the sterling area and Commonwealth economic relations is for this country to invest more in the sterling area, particularly in dollar-saving production?

That, of course, is a much wider question. There is, obviously, great force in what the right hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to amend rules 8 (c) and 12 of the rules applicable to Schedule A, Case VII, in view of the recent judgment in the Court of Appeal in Gatehouse v. Vise (Inspector of Taxes).

As the time limit for appeal has not expired, this case is still sub judice and I cannot, therefore, comment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the slump in the sale of Premium Savings Bonds and the consequent under-employment of the staff at the Lytham St. Annes offices, he will now wind up the scheme in the interests of the national economy.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister not admit that the results arising from this scheme have been disappointing? Further, could he say by how many the staff at Lytham St. Annes has been reduced from the thousand-odd who were there at first, and would he confirm or deny the allegation which has been made that many of the girls there are spending their time knitting and doing crossword puzzles?

Questions concerning the staff at Lytham St. Annes are for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. As regards the success of the scheme, the House may wish to know that it has made a more important contribution to net saving than any other form of security.

Whatever the hon. Gentleman means by "net saving", is he aware that the biggest proportion of contributions to the Premium Savings Bonds scheme was a transfer very largely of Surtax payers last November and that the results since then have been quite insignificant in terms of new saving? Since the hon. Gentleman has told us that the scheme is costing £ 30,000 a week to operate, and in view of the stories of people doing crossword puzzles, knitting and all the rest, is he aware that this is completely contrary to all the pledges we had from hon. Members opposite about reducing the numbers of uselessly employed bureaucrats?

There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to run away so soon from his expression of certainty in the Budget debate last year that the Premium Savings Bonds would be very popular. Indeed, as I say, they are making the greatest contribution of all the resources of National Savings to net savings.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the sales of Premium Savings Bonds for the months of December, January, and February, respectively.

The figures are approximately:— December, £ 5,530,000; January, £ 5,380,000; February, £ 3,530,000.

Would the Minister agree that those figures indicate that the Premium Savings Bonds have lost their popularity?

No, Sir. It was always anticipated that sales would be highest in the early part of the six-month period.

While I am prepared to accept that I overestimated the popularity of these bonds, except with Surtax payers, and while some of us are sometimes willing to confess when we are wrong, will the hon. Gentleman now admit that this is another of the Prime Minister's gimmicks that failed, and call the whole thing off?

It is a gimmick which was greatly welcomed by the National Savings Movement and which the Movement is using to such effect that, as I have already twice told the House, it is the most effective instrument which is at the moment at its disposal.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the amount of revenue from the present hydrocarbon oil duties receivable in a full year on the basis of the petrol ration applicable after 17th April and allowing for freedom from restriction on consumption of diesel oil for road transport applicable from 1st April; and what was the amount received during the last previous year free from rationing.

On the hypothesis mentioned in the first part of the Question, the revenue would be about £ 435 million; in regard to the second part, receipts from the hydrocarbon oil duties in the 12 months ended 30th November, 1956, amounted to £ 332 million.

Does that not show that the Treasury is making a profit from the increased tax and does it not justify the claim, made from this side of the House, that there is no reason for continuing this tax but that it is a burden which is being imposed on the public?

It shows nothing of the kind, because the hypothesis in the first part of the hon. Member's Question is most unlikely to be fulfilled.

Since consumption is running at a rate only 3 per cent, less than last year and since for the bus and coach companies, as well as road haulage. rationing has virtually ceased and consumption is at the pre-rationing level, how can it be said that the £ 100 million difference is not an unnecessary burden?

The £ 100 million difference exists only on the hypothesis in the hon. Member's Question, which is a hypothesis as to the future. The revenue from this tax in the current year is such that, as I have already told the House, the Budget estimate will barely be realised.