§ 27. Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the account 1954–55 of the National Land Fund, which shows that the only payment made was £2,500 for a set of banners associated with Sir Francis Drake; and if he is now in a position to make a statement about the future use of the Fund, which has now reached nearly £58 million.
§ Mr. H. BrookeThe Answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir"; and to the second part "No, Sir."
§ Mr. RobinsonIs the Financial Secretary aware that, in the sad history of this Fund—which was set up for the most admirable purposes—last year was the most pathetic year of all? Is he further aware that this consideration by the Government has been going on for nearly a year, and can he say when his right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement?
§ Mr. BrookeI quite agree that the size of the Fund has proved to be excessive in relation to its statutory purpose. I cannot say how soon my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement.
§ Mr. ShinwellCould we be enlightened as to the association of Sir Francis Drake with the Land Fund?
§ Mr. BlenkinsopWill not the Financial Secretary take account of the strong feeling there is, on both sides of the House, that this Fund should be used, as originally intended, to help to establish national parks?
§ Mr. BrookeIn answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), eight sixteenth century banners, traditionally associated with Sir Francis Drake and the "Golden Hind," were accepted in satisfaction of death duties. The answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) is that it is quite true that, when this Fund was first introduced, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) suggested that it might be useful when national parks legislation came along, but when that legislation did come along, the Labour Government did not finance it by the use of this Fund.