asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that British manufacturers who supplied goods to Turkey as long ago as 1952 and registered their transactions with the Central Bank in March, 1953, have not yet been paid; and what steps he will take to negotiate a new agreement with the Turkish authorities so as to expedite payments of debts nearly five years old.

Yes, Sir. But the Turkish authorities are keeping to the terms agreed with us and, in view of the difficult balance of payments situation in Turkey, this does not seem a good time for fresh negotiations in the sense my hon. Friend suggests.

Could my right hon. Friend say whether the Turkish Government are using their sterling for buying sterling products instead of repaying their debts, and ought they not really to face up to their responsibilities and the fact that they are nearly five years in arrears?

We have an agreement with the Turks whereby they pay off £130,000 a month of their old commercial debts, and they are keeping to that agreement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why two separate new draft International Copyright Conventions have been prepared respectively by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation as well as by the International Labour Organisation; which body is regarded by Her Majesty's Government as more authoritative in this connection; and what steps he proposes to take to suggest that this duplication of effort should be avoided.

The two draft conventions are not strictly copyright conventions but deal with rights that may be given to performing artists, to makers of gramophone records and to broadcasting organisations. These matters involve both copyright law and the earnings of artists and the two draft conventions reflect these two aspects. I dislike unnecessary duplication as much as my hon. Friend, but the organisations to which he refers have each a part to play.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will supply details of imports from Albania and exports from the United Kingdom to Albania during the past three years.

Trade with Albania is very small. With permission, I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what considerations he is giving to an import licensing programme for canned deciduous fruit from the United States of America in 1958 in view of the reported allocation of funds under that country's Public Law 480 for this purpose; and whether he will restrict the first part of any proposed quota to token proportions so that the size of the new year's Commonwealth packs can be assessed and their disposal be safeguarded.

We are not at present considering details of United States proposals for canned deciduous fruit under Public Law 480. In accordance with our normal practice, we should consult Commonwealth Governments before reaching a decision.

Whilst that is a very good Answer as far as it goes, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether consultations have yet taken place with Commonwealth Governments in view of the possibility of the United States making these proposals?

Until we have formal proposals there is nothing to consult about.

Could my right hon. Friend say whether he will also consult the British canning industry so that the interests of home producers may find their proper place?

We shall take all those things into consideration.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the extent to which he has exercised his powers under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, with regard to restrictive trading agreements brought to the attention of the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements and the Restrictive Practices Court.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what additions he has made since June, 1957, to the list of agreements for early consideration by the Restrictive Practices Court;

(2) what directions have been given to the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements as to the order in which cases shall be taken before the Restrictive Practices Court.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what directions he has given to the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Practices with a view to varying the order in which proceedings are to be taken before the Restrictive Practices Court.

The Board of Trade has made two orders under Sections 9 and 10 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act calling up for registration all categories of agreements covered by the Act.

The Board has given two directions to the Registrar under subsection (2) of Section 1 about the first cases to be taken before the Restrictive Practices Court. The text of the first direction was given on 16th April, 1957, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk), and I am arranging for the text of the second direction to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

In view of the fact that the first case may not come before the Restrictive Practices Court until the spring of next year, is the President of the Board of Trade satisfied that progress is adequate to deal with the vast number of cases which have been put on the list? Can he give an indication when the further list which has been added is likely to be reached for consideration by the Court?

The time when cases are reached by the Court is a matter for the Attorney-General, but the first fruits of this legislation are really to be seen in the number of restrictive practices which have been scrapped rather than registered.

Will not the President of the Board of Trade realise that the speed with which these restrictive practices are being dealt with is nothing like that expected by his predecessor, and will he not, therefore, do something to expedite the machinery of the Act so that these matters can be dealt with very much quicker?

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the Board of Trade has done what it is its duty to do under the Act. It is now a matter for the Registrar, who is not responsible to the Board of Trade but independent, and for the Court. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask a Question about that, it should be addressed to the Attorney-General.

Is it not extraordinary that eighteen months after the passing of the Act not a single case has gone before the Court? In view of the assurances we have had from the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor about how quickly this Act would work, cannot the right hon. Gentleman at least tell us when the first case will go before the Court?

When the first case goes before the Court is not a matter for the Board of Trade but for the Attorney-General.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will propose to the United States of America and other countries involved a conference to consider recent movements in the prices of primary commodities with a view to concluding specific commodity agreements to assure greater stabilisation of prices on a basis fair to producers and consumers alike.

No, Sir. As I said in the debate last Wednesday, we are watching commodity prices closely, but so far the volume of international trade is keeping up well. Discussions are currently taking place in G.A.T.T. on this subject, and I do not consider that a special conference is called for.

But since G.A.T.T. itself provides machinery to deal with problems of the stabilisation of prices, will not the right hon. Gentleman realise the very grave problems for the sterling area, economic and, indeed, political, that may arise from any further recession in commodity prices? Since the United States may now themselves be willing to look at this, especially on cotton, will not the right hon. Gentleman take up the suggestions we made in the economic debate on this matter?

I agree that a collapse of commodity prices would be serious, but it is not our view that this is going to take place, and the United States is a member of G.A.T.T. and will be taking part in those discussions.

Will my right hon. Friend not altogether dismiss this idea from his mind? Is it not a fact that, but for United States aid in various forms to the tune of between four billion and five billion dollars a year, the trade of the whole free world would be very much out of balance? Has my right hon. Friend considered the very serious effect on the sterling area producers of any further recession in the United States?

Yes, we have these things under consideration. It is open to us at any time to talk to the United States Government about them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the problems which will face the pottery in- dustry when the proposals for the European Free Trade Area come into effect, what steps he proposes to take to enable this industry to become sufficiently modernised to meet world competition.

The record of the pottery industry since the war has been one of substantial and continuing modernisation. Exports for the year ended 30th September, 1957, were worth nearly £13 million and were more than 44 per cent. of total sales. In general, the industry is equipped to meet world competition.

I very much appreciate that reply. It will be encouraging. Is the President of the Board of Trade satisfied that when this European Free Trade plan comes into being the pottery industry will be in relatively the same position? If not, will he consider a new initiative with a view to stimulating interest in the problem in the indusry?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am going to Stoke-on-Trent at the beginning of next month, when, no doubt, these matters will be discussed.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to improve the prospects of the industries most likely to be adversely affected by the setting up of a European Free Trade Area.

It is for every firm to assess the possible effects of the European Free Trade Area on its own products, and to plan how it can best adapt itself to take advantage of the opportunities of a wider market. The services of my Department are available to any firm which needs advice or information.

In view of our economic needs and the seriousness of our position, is it not out of date to leave it to firms? Ought not the Board of Trade to take the initiative by calling together the firms in each industry, to let them consider the problems all together?

We are consulting each industry through all the trade associations. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that imports of pottery are only 5 per cent. of home production and that the tariff on pottery coming in here does not exceed about 5 per cent. Therefore, the pottery industry is in a very good position to take advantage of the European Free Trade Area.

Will my right hon. Friend consider issuing a very clear statement upon the effects of this European marketing scheme, because I find that in the country there is a great deal of misunderstanding, and the time has now arrived when my right hon. Friend should come out openly and let us know which industries will be affected and which not?

I do not think I could do what my hon. Friend wants because it depends upon the managements in the various industries whether they take full advantage of their opportunities or not.

Since the Government refuse to publish a White Paper on this, will the right hon. Gentleman commend to his hon. Friend the Member for Hallam (Mr. R. Jennings) the most expert and authoritative document on this subject of the effect on our industries, issued by the Trades Union Congress?

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of undertakings given by him on the closing down of the Swynnerton Royal Ordnance Factory, to what extent he has been successful in encouraging the opening or expanding of industrial concerns in the City of Stoke-on-Trent, with particular reference to the Newstead industrial site.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on his plans for new industries in Stoke-on-Trent.

The Board of Trade have brought the facilities for establishing new industry in North Staffordshire to the notice of industrialists and will continue to do so, but so far no definite result has been obtained.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the municipality has done all it possibly can do in this respect, and will he give instructions to his officials that the municipal authorities should be encouraged by more concrete results?

is the President of the Board of Trade satisfied that there is a very special need for new industries in this city? If he is, will he use every power he has to encourage industrialists to bring their industries there? While doing so, will he bear in mind, too, that there is a very special problem associated with the two principal industries, mining and pottery, which cause us a large number of pneumoconiosis cases, and that this adds point to the request made?

I am aware of those circumstances, and we are trying now to interest one or two likely industrialists.

Would the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this problem, because the industries which will be especially affected and subjected to considerable new strains by the European Free Trade Area include industries like cotton which no one could call at the moment very greatly or very universally equipped with modern equipment? Will he draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that the Government's present financial policy imposes upon those industries the greatest possible restriction in re-equipping themselves, and also upon the introduction of alternative industries, at the very moment when those industries most require to modernise themselves, and alternative industries are required?

While not accepting all hon. Member says, I will, of course, bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the reduction of Purchase Tax on pottery from 30 to 15 per cent. has had a beneficial effect on home trade sales.

Home trade sales of domestic pottery were 11 per cent. greater in the six months ended 30th September, 1957, than they were in the corresponding period of 1956. I cannot say to what extent this increase was attributable to the reduction in Purchase Tax.

Has not the President observed the view of the industry itself that at least this coincides with the reduction in the Purchase Tax from 30 per cent. to 15 per cent.? In view of this, will he take an early opportunity to discuss the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and urge that the remaining 15 per cent. be now abolished?

Yes.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why he decided last month to release 20,000 tons of lead from the United Kingdom stockpile.

Because it was no longer needed for strategic purposes and I was satisfied that disposal could be effected without disrupting the market.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fall in prices of primary products exported from the sterling area is already a source of anxiety and that if the Board of Trade indulges in dumping prices will fall further still? Is he also aware that the United States tariff commission will shortly be examining the United States lead industry's case for raising tariffs and therefore his action will be a strong argument for raising them?

The hon. Member is a little unfair to use the word "dumping." We have been selling lead for some time at the rate of 3,000 tons a month, and we are now proposing to continue to clear out at that rate the 20,000 tons which remain. The price of lead happens to be only the same now as it was in 1954. I do not think that we can say that so small a proportion of the world's total production as we intend to sell is disruptive.

What about the point on the United States tariff?

I have no reason to think that continuing disposals of so small a quantity of lead will make any practical difference to the United States tariff.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Government will introduce legislation to replace the existing emergency powers in respect of hire-purchase and hiring agreements.

Yes, Sir, but I cannot say when.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accelerate his consideration of this matter? Is he aware that there is already considerable confusion in the hire-purchase trade, as instanced by the seven different Orders which he promulgated during the last Session?

I have not had any representations about the confusion to which the hon. Member refers.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount of exports from this country of armaments to the countries of the Middle East since the war.

Separate figures for military equipment sold to foreign countries are not disclosed. But exports of explosives (including industrial explosives), arms, ammunition, etc. (including some non-military material) and aircraft (including civil aircraft) to the countries of the Middle East in the period 1946–June, 1957, amounted to approximately £60 million.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly forward those figures to the Foreign Secretary, who seems to think that the only country sending armaments to the Middle East is the Soviet Union? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Soviet Union has sent less or more armaments to the Middle East than we have?

Not without notice.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the decline in output of machine tools at Alfred Herberts, Ltd., Coventry, and the redundancy at Messrs. Wickmans, Ltd., Coventry, manufacturers of machine tools; and what action he has taken to stimulate output in the industry in view of the urgent demand in other industries as well as in the North American market for machine tools manufactured in this country.

Yes, Sir; in the case of certain types of machine tools demand has slackened over the past year. Output in general has been well maintained and British exports to North America so far this year are 60 per cent. higher than last year, with the result that Canada and the United States are now among the industry's best overseas markets.

Despite that fact, is the Minister not aware that the situation, generally speaking, is serious not only for Coventry but for the whole country? Is he aware that the level of orders for forward delivery of machine tools is lower than it has been since the war? In those circumstances and as the whole of industrial progress depends upon the machine tool industry, what concrete action will the Minister take?

It is true that orders are less for certain types of machine tools, but for the heavy machine tools they are still so large as to cause considerable anxiety. I think that the machine tool industry will run better if it has not quite such a long order book.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total estimated Exchequer revenue from British writers who earn dollars from articles appearing in United States newspapers.

I regret that this information is not available.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether these people include Mr. Muggeridge, who gets his money by smearing other people, including the Queen, and should not this hysterical little Communist be induced to go to live in Russia?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his latest estimate of the amount of current investment in, respectively, electricity, railways, coal, gas, and roads.

The latest estimates for the current accounting years of the authorities concerned are: Electricity, £274 million; Railways, £120 million; Coal, £100 million; Gas, £59 million, and Roads, £25 million.

Does not my right lion. Friend think that the figure for roads is very inadequate compared with the figures for the others, all of which would benefit if our road system were somewhat better than it is?

If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at what I said in the debate the other day, he will see that an increased allocation for roads is already made.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the representations made to him by the British Furniture Manufacturers Federated Associations on the subject of the anomalies in definitions of furniture; and if he will make a statement.

I have no statement to make on this subject at present.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will be very disappointing indeed, especially in view of the statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the debate on 28th May, that he would look at these anomalies with a view to trying to dispel them in the near future?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the possibility of accepting post-war credits in payment of Estate Duty.

I have considered this possibility but do not feel able to adopt it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great similarity between Estate Duty and post-war credits? Is he aware that Estate Duty is a legalised confiscation and destruction of savings and that post-war credits are compulsory savings which are being fast destroyed by inflation? Would it not be fair to set the one against the other?

Answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that institutions calling themselves banks are advertising for deposits at 8½ per cent. interest free of tax; and, since such a high rate of interest cannot be paid with safety, if he will take steps to prohibit the use of the term bank to such speculative ventures.

There is no power to prevent an institution describing itself as a bank though it may be prevented from including it as part of its registered name.

But does my right hon. Friend consider any institution which can offer an interest of 8½ per cent. free of tax to be sound? Ought not some steps to be taken to safeguard ordinary people from being swindled of their hard-earned savings?

It is not for me to advise on rates of interest between individuals of that character.

Surely the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has a point here. Will the Chancellor study the article on this subject in a special issue of the Manchester Guardian this morning? In the light of that, if he says that he has not the powers, will he introduce powers, because we can promise him a pretty easy passage for such a Bill?

My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) may be right that there may be some case for examination of lending by institutions outside the banks, but that raises a very wide issue which I would not propose to deal with in this answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will set up a special committee of inquiry into the system of financial control of War Office expenditure, in view of the recent report of the Committee of Public Accounts.

No, Sir. The Report of the Public Accounts Committee is now being examined and a Treasury Minute will be furnished to the Committee in the ordinary way.

When the examination has taken place, will my right hon. Friend let the House have an indication of the facts discovered and the actions taken? Would he not agree that to screw down a lot of people for small amounts one way or another and allow a Government Department to waste money at the rate of millions of pounds does not really arouse a great deal of confidence in the financial control which his Department exercises over some Government Departments?

The normal procedure is for a Treasury Minute to be provided to the Committee of Public Accounts, which normally furnishes that as an appendix to one of its reports to the House of Commons. This has worked very well in the past and I think that we might stick to it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the growth, since the intensification of the credit squeeze, on 19th September, of a black market in credit facilities and loans, at extortionate rates of interest, and involving borrowing from Zurich and other financial centres; and what action he is taking in the matter.

I am aware that any restriction on advances tends to encourage borrowing outside the normal banking system. I am also aware that foreign currency is once again tending to flow to London.

While the right hon. Gentleman can make these generalisations, may I ask whether he does not study the evidence produced, for instance, in the City column of the Manchester Guardian, which had a very clear article on this with evidence of foreign currency flowing to London to take part in this black market at rates of 12½ per cent. and 15 per cent.? Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with a scandalous black market of this kind?

My principal troubles lately have not been to prevent foreign currency flowing into London.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a White Paper on the recent negotiations in Paris on proposals for a European Free Trade Area, including the text of all set speeches made by United Kingdom Ministers during those negotiations.

No, Sir. I know the right hon. Gentleman's desire to press forward with these negotiations, but I do not think that the publication of a White Paper would assist at this stage.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not concerned in these negotiations, except from the Opposition benches? On behalf of the Opposition benches, and I am sure on hon. Members on both sides of the House, may I say that we should like to know a little more of what the Government are doing, in our name? In these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that copies of speeches made by Her Majesty's Ministers in Paris were made available to the Press each night during the Paris negotiations and will the Government stop this practice under which a great deal more is given to the Press informally than is given to the House of Commons?

If too much information is being given away, I would try to help the right hon. Gentleman on that but I do not see how a White Paper would help before negotiations have actually started.

But since we understand from the Press that the Government have made important pronouncements in the preliminary round at Paris, and since the Paris negotiations were themselves postponed from the spring to meet various requirements, which we understand, is it not about time that the House of Commons, which has not debated this subject since 26th November last year, should be brought into the picture? On behalf of those who really want to help these negotiations forward if they are reasonable, may I ask the Chancellor to realise that he will have more success by taking the House of Commons into his confidence than by withholding information from it?

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to take any of the ordinary opportunities for debate, there is nothing to prevent him doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that any agreement on the establishment of a free trade area in Europe will allow relief to be given to hard-hit industries at least to the extent allowed by the Treaty of Rome.

I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman suggests and keep in touch with industry upon these matters.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the confusion with regard to receipting bills which has arisen following the Cheques Act; and whether he will clarify the position.

Section 3 of the Cheques Act, 1957, provides in effect that a paid unendorsed cheque is prima facie evidence of the receipt by the payee of the amount for which it is drawn. This puts paid unendorsed cheques in the same position as paid endorsed cheques; in no other respect has the law relating to receipts been changed.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that up to now receipted vouchers have had to be produced in support of maintenance claims, claims under Section 314 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, and other similar claims, and that in view of the passing into law of the Cheques Act this is no longer possible; and if he will make a comprehensive statement on the procedure to be adopted in the future, and arrange for this to be circulated to all those who may be concerned.

The Inland Revenue will accept an unendorsed paid cheque together with the unreceipted accounts or invoice; but nothing in the Cheques Act alters a person's right to require a duly stamped receipt for a payment of £2 or over.

Does this mean that if an unendorsed cheque and a bill which bears no evidence of payment on it are brought together, that will be accepted as evidence of payment by the Inland Revenue?

The Inland Revenue will accept an unendorsed cheque with the invoice as evidence of payment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why cheques, pay orders or vouchers in respect of payments by Government Departments to private individuals do not carry 2d. stamps and whether, in view of the passage of the Cheques Act, he will arrange for these to be regarded as receipted if endorsed without the further addition of a 2d. stamp.

They are exempt from cheque stamp duty and in some cases, notably for payments to pensioners, from receipt stamp duty where they embody a form of receipt. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT extracts from a circular I have issued on this subject to Departments.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that relying on the provisions of Section 3 of the Cheques Act, 1957, the practice of giving receipts is dying out; and what is his estimate of the amount of revenue which will be lost as a result.

No precise estimate can be made.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to complete the promised review of Purchase Tax anomalies.

I can give no undertaking. The alleged anomalies referred to in the Finance Bill debates were numerous and full consideration must inevitably take some time.

Is the Chancellor aware of the considerable importance of this subject to industry? Will he bear in mind that the changes can be made by Order and need not await the Budget, and will he consider, in particular, publishing simple lists of taxed goods instead of the present very complicated Schedules of exclusions?

I recognise the importance of this subject and I will bear in mind what has been said by the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend, but I am not ready to make a statement at the moment.

Will the Chancellor at least say whether he agrees with the statement of the President of the Board of Trade in September that he favours a fiat rate of tax instead of the Purchase Tax?

There is no question of consideration being given to a fiat rate of tax and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the spreading of such a rumour would do a great deal of harm to just those interests about which his hon. Friend was talking.

Yes, Sir, but since those rumours arose from a statement made by the President of the Board of Trade, reported in the Evening Standard, will the Chancellor pass on his admonition to his right hon. Friend sitting next to him?

I have taken the opportunity, in answer to a Question, to say that this is not under consideration, and I hope that attention will be paid to it.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will take steps to ensure that vehicles subject to a speed limit of 30 miles per hour as goods vehicles are only subject to the appropriate rate of Purchase Tax for this type of vehicle.

No, Sir. The considerations which govern classification for speed limit and for taxation are completely different.

Is it not unfair that a vehicle should at one and the same time be classed as a passenger vehicle for Purchase Tax purposes and a goods vehicle for speed limit purposes, thus getting the worst of both worlds? Could not the Government stake steps to co-ordinate these classifications, because the present conflict is a serious drawback to the motor industry?

There is not necessarily any relationship betwen the two classifications. For Purchase Tax purposes a vehicle which is constructed mainly for passenger transport must bear the appropriate rate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the sum of taxes which were due for payment before the end of the last financial year and which are still unpaid.

The figure of the amount that is still unpaid is not available and it would take a disproportionate amount of time to find out. Customs duties which are still unpaid amount to approximately £¼ million.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that all possible measures are being taken to prevent the accumulation of tax debts, particularly by people who are not covered by P.A.Y.E. schemes?

Yes, Sit. A good deal of the amount that is outstanding is, of course, subject to appeal.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) to what persons outside Government service he authorised the communication on 18th September of any measures to be taken by him on 19th September;

(2) if he will state the names of Members of both Houses of Parliament, or ex-Members, other than members of the Government, who were seen on any official business connected with the Treasury or briefed by him or his representatives on Wednesday, 18th September.

No, Sir. I am glad to have this opportunity of saying that there was no leakage of the increase in the Bank Rate, that there was no brief about the Bank Rate, and it would I consider be quite inappropriate for me to state whom I saw or for what purpose on this or any other day.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the last part of his Answer will cause a good deal of concern and dismay, particularly in the City of London, where grave doubts are being expressed about the propriety of the way in which the Bank Rate change was announced? Will he now make a further specific and categorical statement as to whether or not prior information of his intentions was given to an ex-Member of this House, namely, Mr. Oliver Poole?

Prior information about the Bank Rate was given to no one who was not inside my Department or my own advisers. Prior information of that kind was not given. May I say this to the hon. Gentleman? If he had information which he thought raised any suspicion, he should have made it available to the Lord Chancellor and should not bandy it about here.

Does not the Chancellor's refusal to answer this Question in the way it is put throw the most surprising light—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the strangest light on the Prime Minister's refusal to order an inquiry? Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House: did he or any representative of the Treasury see Mr. Oliver Poole on Wednesday, 18th September?

If the right hon. Gentleman will reflect a moment—[HON. MEMBERS "Answer the question."] This is a serious matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If the right hon. Gentleman will reflect a moment, he will realise how inappropriate that question really is, because if I were to state that in those days of pressure upon sterling, the T.U.C. had been seen—or the Chairman of the Conservative Party or even a right hon. Gentleman on the bench opposite—there is no doubt whatever that it would be used in some quarters to suggest that someone in that position had used for his own purposes some information which he had got, and for my own part I do not propose to pander to gossip of that kind.

Will the Chancellor now answer the question? Since he saw me a week before Bank Rate went up, before the decision was taken, we are asking him whether he saw anybody the afternoon after the Bank Rate decision was taken and before it was known to the public generally? Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the inquiries he has made about the sales of gilt-edged, and whether any of them were undertaken by companies connected with any of the people whom he saw, or any other representative of the Treasury saw, on Wednesday afternoon?

This matter was fully dealt with in the letter which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent to the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have nothing whatever to add.

But, Mr. Speaker, since the right hon. Gentleman said it was fully dealt with, is he aware that that letter dealt with only one or two specific and very minor pieces of evidence which we put before the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—which it was our duty to put before the Prime Minister, because we had it? We had no idea at that time that there was any suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman had seen the Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party. Will he not now, in order to allay public anxiety on this matter, state clearly whether he did or did not, or any other Treasury representative did or did not, see the Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party, who has vast City interests, the day before Bank Rate went up?

The letter dealt with every scrap of evidence which the right hon. Gentleman put forward.

Will the Chancellor appreciate that masses of people in this country will agree with his view not to be drawn into a mare's nest by opening any inquiry?

Order. If this matter is to be pursued, it should be pursued at another time. Otherwise it will take up too much of valuable Question Time.

May I repeat the question to the Chancellor, Mr. Speaker? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In the circumstances, may I ask the Chancellor whether he will now say, did he or did he not see Mr. Oliver Poole on this date?

I have already given a full answer to this. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Speaker, since the right hon. Gentleman said that the Lord Chancellor dealt with every piece of evidence submitted to him—and of course, we are all prepared to accept that fact—is he aware that this question about Mr. Oliver Poole was not submitted to the Lord Chancellor? Will he now recommend to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—because it has only come up now and because we gave all the evidence we had to the Lord Chancellor—the need for a full inquiry, on oath, on all the circumstances arising out of this unfortunate matter?

If the right hon. Gentleman has any evidence at all which he thinks discloses any impropriety, it was his duty at the time to place it before the Lord Chancellor, and I may say that it is his duty now.

Mr. Jay.

But could not the Chancellor clear up the whole of this matter—[Interruption.] Could he not clear up the whole of this matter—

Order. I called the right hon. Gentleman because I wanted him to ask Question 32, but he is entitled to say what he likes.

I was about to ask the Chancellor if he could not clear up the whole matter to the satisfaction of both sides of the House by denying that he saw Mr. Oliver Poole on that day.

Mr. Jay. Question 32.

rose—

Question 32.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I did not understand whether you had called Question 32. If you had not, I was going to submit, with the greatest respect, that in view of the interests of hon. Members who have a great many Questions down on the Paper—[Interruption.]

Order. I have called Question 32.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now introduce compulsory limitation of dividends.

No, Sir. I do not intend to fix either dividends or wages.

As the Government, and the Minister of Health, in particular, are now compulsorily limiting wages, how can it be fair not to do the same with dividends?

My right hon. Friend is not fixing wages, and I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman's desire to fix all money incomes in this country.

rose—

We really must get on. Mr. Vane.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that the present law affecting Income Tax payable on royalties derived from patents is so framed as to encourage inventors to develop their work in this country rather than take it abroad.

Patent royalties received by a resident in the United Kingdom are liable to Income Tax wherever the patent is exploited.

Will my right hon. Friend look into the whole matter again before next year's Finance Bill to ensure that inventors whose work is most important to the industry of this country are not subjected to temptation to take the fruits of their inventions overseas for exploitation? By that I mean serious inventions which are of value to the interests of this country, not the dirt and scandal which hon. Members opposite are trying to invent here this afternoon.

I will certainly bear in mind any representations which my hon. Friend wishes to make.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to how many people, approximately, and in what categories, the Government pay wages.

As the Answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury in how many cases since 1st January, 1957, the Customs and Excise authorities have found British European Airways aircraft returning to this country with their bars overstocked with spirits and tobacco; in how many cases the stocks have been impounded; and, as aircraft are as a result flying with insufficient stocks, what consultations he has had, with a view to finding a satisfactory solution to the problem.

The quantity of duty-free spirits and tobacco issued to an aircraft going abroad is limited by law to the reasonable needs of its complement during the flight. There is no question of impounding stores which are brought back, or have been purchased abroad, but the bar-boxes are kept under official control until they can be allocated to outgoing aircraft entitled to the quantity of stores they contain. The scales of permitted stores have several times been adjusted following discussion with British European Airways.

is the hon. Gentleman stating that there have not been any meetings of Government Departments recently to deal with this problem because of complaints by B.E.A.? Is it not true that the scales are governed by a law 200 years old which applied to sailing ships and permits the possession of 1 oz. of duty-free tobacco and a ¼ pt. of spirits per passenger? If that is correct, does it measure up to modern standards having regard to what other aircraft carry?

The scales which are applied to aircraft have been designed for aircraft and have been discussed, as I have indicated, several times with British European Airways.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to increase the efficiency of the working of the Civil Service along the lines of proposals submitted to him by the Civil Service Clerical Association earlier this year.

The Civil Service Clerical Association's proposals have been under examination by the Treasury and some of the big employing Departments. The indications so far are that they would not produce significant reductions of staff, and that the net result would be to increase the cost of the Service. Further investigations will be made before final conclusions are reached.

Does the Chancellor agree that where employees, whether civil servants or others, put forward proposals designed to save manpower and to increase efficiency, they should be given every possible encouragement? Can he give an assurance that the proposals referred to in the Question will not be pigeon-holed?

Such proposals should certainly be encouraged and examined, but if they cost more it is probable that they ought to be rejected.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why temporary service in the Civil Service before 1st January, 1919, is not counted as to one half in assessment for pensions; and whether he will alter this date.

Because one of the objects of the provision of the Superannuation Act, 1946, which precludes the reckoning of pre-1919 service, was to cater for those who entered the Civil Service in the 'twenties and 'thirties under special schemes for ex-Service men of the 1914–18 war. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No."

As my right hon. Friend is supposed to be examining proposals for dealing with small fixed income groups, is this one of the proposals which he will have re-examined? Is he aware that the ex-Service men's associations, whose views are now reflected in the representations that are being made, fully support the proposal that the date should be altered from January, 1919? Will he reconsider the point?

I have given the reason why this date was chosen, but I would never refuse to examine anything that my hon. Friend put to me.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us approximately how many persons are involved in the subject of the Question, and what the concession would be likely to cost the Treasury?

Not without notice.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government by how much the weekly rent of a corporation house or flat costing £1,800, the loan for which is repayable over sixty years, will be increased by the latest increase in interest rates; how many local authorities have informed him of a reduction or ending of their housing programmes; and if he will take steps to reduce the greatly increased burden of interest charges.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities have informed him of their intention of reducing their slum clearance and old people's housing programmes since the announcement of a 7 per cent. Bank Rate.

Local authorities are responsible for fixing rents, and the effect on rents of the recent increase in interest rates will depend upon the policy of local authorities. Some nineteen local authorities have informed me of their decision to reduce their housing programmes. There have been reports in the Press that a number of others have taken similar decisions. In answer to the third part of the Question from the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), I would refer him to my statement during yesterday's debate.

If the Minister really understands the misery of hundreds of thousands of families who have already waited up to twelve years on housing lists, why does not he resist within the Cabinet this slaughter of the housing programme?

This is a matter which we debated at length yesterday, and the Opposition had a rather bad day.