I am aware of the order just as well as the Financial Secretary, but one of the things we wish to introduce, as I understand it, as a matter of financial policy, is the capital investment of hard currency countries into the sterling area in the broadest sense, and that is my argument. The phrasing of this order makes it practically impossible for a hard currency country to invest in this country without suffering all the disadvantages of being a soft currency country; and all I am asking him to tell me at the moment, in view of the capital expenditure to which we are committed, particularly in relation to oil, where we are hoping to attract hard currency capital, is whether he thinks this order about branches is a good and sound one? I do not pretend to judge. All I am asking is an explanation of why he has, in fact, taken Section 39 (1, a) from the Exchange Control Act, and translated it literally into this order which—and I may be wrong, and I hope I am—will debar hard currency areas from being willing to allow their subsidiaries or branches to invest in this country. I would ask him to clear up that point.

Similarly, there is a small point about Order No. 2038, the second of the three minor ones. In this country, we have a great number of blocked accounts from hard currency countries. The Treasury has used full powers given to them under the Schedule, paragraph 4 (a) to which this order refers, and I would like to know from the Financial Secretary why any company which has such a blocked account is prohibited from using the money they have in this country to found a subsidiary either in this country or in the sterling area, for this, if allowed again, would attract hard currency capital and would undoubtedly benefit this country. Equally, I would like to know why this ten-year limit has been imposed under the order. What is the magic of ten years? Is that the term which is set to some monetary policy of the Government? Why should it be that they will not allow any sums from hard currency areas, which in fact this order is chiefly concerned with, to be put into any shares or stock which is redeemable during the next ten years.

Does the Financial Secretary think that will attract exchange from hard currency areas when people know that whatever they do the Government are not going to allow them to invest any shares or stock or any form of investment within the ten-year limit? Does the Financial Secretary consider that this is the way to help us in our present parlous condition?

Then we come to the third order. Here we have a list of specified currencies. Under the Exchange Control Act, any person acquiring currencies specified according to the order of the Treasury must surrender it to an authorised dealer, but if one looks at this list it seems to be completely arbitrary. I am perfectly prepared to admit that the major foreign currencies are included, but once you get beyond those major currencies there seems to be absolutely nothing in the list of either rhyme or reason. In "Trade and Navigation Accounts," which is a good guide to the currencies we need or are short of, it will be seen that two of the major currencies are left out. They are the Spanish group and the Italian group. Neither is included in the Schedule. For the nine months to date, we have an adverse balance in the Spanish group of £14 million, and in the Italian group, an adverse balance of £15 million.

If one takes it slightly further abroad, nearer to the hard currencies, in the case of Chili we have a minus balance of £4 million and, in the case of Paraguay, a minus balance of £1 million. Equally, and to this I would ask the Financial Secretary to give particular attention, in the list which is included, Czechoslovakia is mentioned. With them we have a credit balance of £3 million. If one is to assume—and I think one is justified in doing so under this order—that the whole point is to aggregate to the Treasury those currencies of which we are short, why does this list leave out so many currencies of which we are short and includes currencies of which we have a surplus? So much for the three minor orders.

I now come to the main one, the one which I and my hon. Friends are moving to annul. I will try, to the best of my ability—I cannot do more than that—to realise that there are many things I may say tonight which, if they are carried too far, or if they are phrased in terms of greater import than that which I shall attach to them, may lead to accusations of irresponsibility. I can only ask the Financial Secretary and his hon. Friends behind him to accept my statement that I will try to be responsible. We are told, and I think rightly, that exports at the moment are the one thing which, within the medium term, can adjust not only our overall balance of payments, but can contribute largely to the solution of our hard currency balance of payments. With that I am in agreement.

The whole point of moving the Prayer on this major order is that we do not feel that the Government appreciate that it is no good exporting goods unless you have in return other goods or some service—in other words, the Government are so busy exporting goods that they do not consider where those goods go to or what, in fact, they return.