asked the Minister of Labour if he will give an estimate of how many men engaged in British industry are subject to not more than one day's notice.

Only a very small minority of workers in British industry are subject to so short a period of notice, but it is impossible to estimate the number.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the officially sponsored strike which commenced on 27th May at Messrs. Rodi and Weinenberger (Great Britain) Ltd., operating at 41, Barnsole Street, Gillingham, Kent.

Twenty-nine employees at this firm, members of the Transport and General Workers' Union, ceased work on 27th May in protest against their wages and conditions of employment. Neither the employer nor the union sought the assistance of my Department. Work was resumed on 24th June and negotiations are taking place in which, I understand, representatives of the Engineering Employers' Association are assisting.

Does the Minister's reply mean that his Department does not now propose to interfere (a), to prevent disputes arising, or (b), to settle them, unless they are disputes in an industry which is vital to the economy of the country? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this German firm has been carrying on industrial practices which are entirely contrary to British standards, including working norm?

As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, of course my Department is always available, although it usually waits until a dispute is brought to its notice, but not, of course, in every case. As regards the second part, I think that the trouble arose because this firm was not a member of the Employers' Association. It has now applied for membership, and I understand that there is a likelihood that a settlement will be achieved.

asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many dock workers were registered for employment at Cardiff in 1951 and 1957, respectively;

(2) the percentage of dock workers who, because of absence of employment at Cardiff docks, have had to prove attendance, at the latest available date.

The numbers of dock workers on the Cardiff register at June, 1951, and at June, 1957, were 1,017 and 764, respectively. During the week ending 15th June, 1957, on an average approximately 12·4 per cent. of the dock workers proved attendance daily because work was not available.

Is the Minister aware that the last figure he has given is an underestimate of normal conditions in Cardiff, and that, yesterday morning for example, 65 per cent. of the dockers of Cardiff were out of work? Is he aware that this situation is of growing seriousness there, and that the men are really wondering whether they have any future at all, the difficulties of living on a guaranteed week of £5 14s. being such as to make things practically impossible for them?

In view of what the hon. Member said, I will look at the numbers of those proving attendance over a longer period than I indicated in the Answer. As he knows very well, that figure fluctuates so much that the figure for any given day is not necessarily significant.

After the right hon. Gentleman has looked at it, if he finds that the trend is downwards, as appears to be the case from the 1951 figures which he gave, what action would he propose to take to bring more employment to the South Wales ports and to Cardiff in particular?

The size of the labour force in a port is a matter for the National Dock Labour Board and not for my Ministry. If there is any way in which my colleagues in the Government can help after I have made the examination which I have undertaken to make, I will bring it to their notice.

In view of the severe hardship which has been caused to families in Cardiff, will the Minister consult the President of the Board of Trade to see whether steps can be taken to improve the trade at Cardiff docks? It seems to me that there is a great indifference in the Ministries.

I think that is covered by the answer to the last supplementary question.

Bearing in mind that for generations Cardiff, as a coal-exporting port, played a very big part in the economic life of this country, and bearing in mind that because of changed circumstances that trade has gone, is it not essential to attract new trade to Cardiff; and, as part of that plan, will the Minister discuss this matter with the Minister of Transport to find out whether an improvement in the road communications between Cardiff and the Midlands, in particular the Severn Bridge, in order to bring new trade to Cardiff, would be one of the ways in which this problem could be met?

The question of communications is of first-rate importance in this matter, and I will not forget it.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will receive a deputation representative of the local authority and the workers' and employers' organisations before coming to a final decision on the closure of the Brierley Hill local employment office.

No, Sir. The Stourbridge and Brierley Hill Employment Committee which has already tendered its advice on this proposal, is one of the committees specially constituted under statutory authority to advise me on the local working of the employment exchanges, and I feel that it is to this committee that I must look primarily for advice on local opinion and any local factors affecting the matter.

Is the Minister aware that Stourbridge has a majority on that committee? Is he aware that there is 100 per cent. opposition to this decision from the traders' and manufacturers' association, the trades council and Urban District Council in Brierley Hill? Why has he singled out the Brierley Hill area in the whole of the West Midlands for three closures, two of them in the Black Country conurbation, at Brierley Hill and Bloxwich? Will he look into the matter again? If he will not himself receive a deputation, will one of his higher officials receive a deputation?

I have answered the question about a deputation. I think that for that sort of thing I must look primarily to the local employment committee. As for Stourbridge or Brierley Hill having a majority on that committee, that question should not arise, for it is an employment committee which is supposed to look at the problems of employment of that area and to advise me, irrespective of comparative local interests within that area. It is, of course, natural that the Brierley Hill employers or the employers in any other district would like to have an employment office immediately on their doorstep. In the final decision which I make I will take into account the views which they and the hon. Member have put to me.

asked the Minister of Labour what representations he has received from the local authority and the local employment committee on his proposal to close the Willington part-time employment exchange; and what decision he has come to.

The Crook and Willington Urban District Council and the local employment committee have asked me to retain this office. I have not yet taken a decision and will give full consideration to the local views before doing so.

Will the Minister take into consideration the fact that the local people regard this office as part of the essential social services in the area and that its closure would deprive them of an essential avenue of information? Is he aware that, apart from its service to the unfortunate recipients who sign on for their unemployment pay, it is also an avenue whereby information can be given for limited openings of employment suitable to people in the area? Will he pay due regard to representations which have been made along those lines?

Yes. Certainly I will take all those factors into account.

asked the Minister of Labour what communication he has received from the local employment committee with regard to the closing of the Kinning Park, Glasgow, local office; and what are its terms.

The local employment committee concerned has asked me to retain the office at Kinning Park, Glasgow. The agreed minutes of the special meeting held to consider the question of closing the office are not yet available, but I am advised that the main points made were that the office covered an area which was expanding industrially; that hardship would be caused to disabled persons and to casual dock workers especially and that the savings which would be achieved were small compared with the loss of services involved. I shall give full consideration to the views of the committee before reaching a decision.

Is the Minister aware that that was the unanimous decision of the local employment committee, and that no one at all at the meeting supported his proposal to close the office at Kinning Park? Is he also aware that there was an expression of view on the part of the committee that what was wanted here was a reorganisation of these facilities in view of the fact that the adjacent exchange, in South Side, had been enormously expanded due to the introduction of new housing schemes and that the closing at Kinning Park would not help at all? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter?

Yes, I will. When I say that I have not taken a final decision, that is perfectly true. I have not. I think Kinning Park is an extremely difficult case. There are a large number of people on the register. The reason for closing it was simply its proximity to other local offices. I shall, of course, bear in mind the additional point the hon. Member has just made.

asked the Minister of Labour what is the object of his forthcoming visit to Coventry; whether he will use the occasion to examine the possibility of redundancy in certain aircraft firms; and what opportunities exist of maintaining the highly skilled men thus displaced in employment where their skill will be used to the utmost of its capacity.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on his forthcoming visit to Coventry.

The occasion of this short visit is to address a conference of the Women's Engineering Society. I hope to have an opportunity of informal discussion with representatives of engineering employers and trade unions on the general employment situation in Coventry. There is still a national shortage of skilled engineering workers, though it might not be possible for redundant workers to obtain in Coventry the precise sort of work to which they were accustomed.

While assuring the Minister a cordial welcome when he comes to Coventry, may I ask whether he will make his visit rather more than a congratulatory programme? Will he look particularly into the question of the highly-skilled aircraft workers whose skill is now being lost, either through the workers concerned emigrating or through their turning to work which requires far less skill, with a resultant loss to the country?

This visit arose simply from an invitation to make a speech, and I am glad to accept it. I wanted at the same time to have an opportunity personally to meet some of the people and to talk over just the sort of problem which the hon. Member has in mind. Indeed, the one which he has mentioned is one of those which I particularly intend to look at.

Could the right hon. Gentleman find time for a visit to the large modern factory at Anstey of the Armstrong Siddeley firm? In that firm there are 6,000 highly-skilled aircraft workers, and there is intense anxiety among the shop stewards and other workers about their redundancy in the future. Could he see them, if no one else, on his visit to Coventry?

I do not think that I shall be able to pay a special visit because I think my programme has already been arranged, but I can certainly discuss the question he mentioned with local people.

Will the Minister consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply with a view to considering legislation so that it is possible for these aircraft firms, where there is redundancy, to make aeroplanes originating in other firms, for example, the Viscount, where these other firms are already working to capacity? As this was done in the war, why cannot it be done now?

I am afraid that I am not entirely seized of all the implications of the hon. Member's question, which I think he realises ought probably to be put down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply.

asked the Minister of Laobour why his Department has recently been instrumental in sending War Department equipment for overhaul by private contractors.

My Department plays no part in arranging for the overhaul of War Department equipment.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the percentage of unemployment in Greenock is almost 6 per cent.; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this situation.

Yes, Sir. My local officers are doing all that they can by submitting unemployed workers to vacancies notified to employment exchanges. It is hoped that new projects not yet fully manned will in due course provide about 700 additional jobs in the area.

Does the Minister realise that with the certainty of unemployment of dockers in the Greenock area in the autumn, plus the recent dismissal of 225 Greenock workers from the Royal Ordnance Factory at Bishopton, that already very bad situation of 6 per cent. unemployed is bound to get worse in the very near future? Will he have a word with the President of the Board of Trade and with the Minister of Supply about the whole position, particularly in view of the last part of his Answer?

The June figure is, in fact, rather better for the area—5·6 per cent.—but there are certain disturbing possibilities for the future which the hon. Member mentioned. I know that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland are seized of the importance of this area and of the employment situation in it. If I can help by discussing the matter with them, of course I will.

asked the Minister of Labour how many former employees at Royal Ordnance factories were rendered redundant during the past twelve months; and what are the prospects of placing those employees now threatened with unemployment.

Redundancies announced from the Royal Ordnance factories during the past twelve months affected 3,997 full-time and 350 part-time workers. Discharges became or will become effective at a number of dates between October, 1956, and the end of July, 1957. I am in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply about future redundancies, but until a final decision is taken about factories to be closed or reduced in size, it is not possible to say what are the prospects of placing in employment the workers who will be affected.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House are extremely worried about the Government's policy towards the Royal Ordnance factories which is causing such widespread redundancies? Is he aware that we have now heard that at least one of these factories is to be sold to private enterprise? Would he ensure that the type of work to be done in that factory will make it possible for those workers who are now working there to be maintained in their jobs if private enterprise takes the factory over?

I do not think we should under-estimate, or over-estimate either, the inevitable result of switches in the Government's defence programme, which in any event are, in general, welcome to the whole House. There are bound to be difficulties, but those difficulties, as indeed the Questions today have shown, on the whole have been concentrated in Scotland and in the Potteries. There are many areas in which we shall easily be able to absorb the redundancies which have been created. The only way of answering the hon. Member's question is to say that as long as the economy keeps expanding we ought to be able to absorb within it those who are displaced from Royal Ordnance factories.

Are the Government looking at the question as a whole? There are many repercussions of what seem to be direct orders to Government Departments and shipbuilding yards as a result of which the productive effort may be considerably dislocated. Are the Government looking into the question as a whole to see whether they can make these changes in the form of a phased reorganisation rather than allow it to happen haphazardly without calculating the Costs?

Yes, we try to do that. I devoted part of my speech in the defence debate, in April I think it was, to that, and the right hon. Gentleman will find details of these arrangements recorded in HANSARD.

asked the Minister of Labour approximately how many, and what proportion, of the men and women made redundant at the Radway Green and Swynnerton Royal Ordnance factories in the last 12 months are still unemployed.

One hundred and five men and 51 women out of 1,180 discharged from Radway Green are now registered as unemployed, representing 14 Per cent. of those discharged. Ninety-four of the men and 49 of the women were discharged on 28th June. Of 350 part-time women workers discharged from Swynnerton in mid-June, six are registered as wholly unemployed. Sixty-eight others have sought assistance in finding other employment but most of them are available for part-time work only.

Is the Minister aware that those of us who represent North Staffordshire are still extremely concerned about the prospects for these men and women because of the unemployment which exists in the area? Will he ask the Minister of Supply to discuss with him, before any further redundancies are created, the possibility of conversion to civil production in these factories so as to avoid further unemployment?

I am in constant consultation with my right hon. Friend on exactly these sorts of problems. Considering that the redundancies referred to at Radway Green took place only on 28th June, the figures on the whole are not discouraging. Of course, it is probably the case that many on holiday have not yet registered, and the figure may go up later. We shall probably have a clearer picture in a few weeks' time.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the work now being performed in Royal Ordnance factories is civil work, and what percentage that is of the maximum amount of civil work being performed in the factories some years ago?

Not without notice. In any case, that is a Question which should be put down to the Minister of Supply.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of disabled persons registered in Cardiff as unemployed at the latest convenient date and the comparable number for the same month in 1956 and 1955.

The numbers were 425 on 20th May, 1957; 436 in May, 1956, and 390 in May, 1955.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that these large figures are disturbing us in the City of Cardiff? Can he hold out any prospect of more employment being available for disabled persons? Their number, of course, is increasing all the time.

The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct in saying the number is increasing all the time, because it is slightly lower than it was at the same time last year. It has been pretty stable for a number of years. Of course, we always want to try to reduce it if we can.

asked the Minister of Labour what further progress has been made in placing in employment British nationals who have been obliged to leave Egypt.

Two thousand one hundred and sixty-nine British subjects from Egypt have registered for employment. Of these 914 have been found work by my Department. In addition a number have found their own employment and some have emigrated. At 21st June, there were 422 men and women still awaiting placing.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of these people, particularly ex-employees of Suez contractors, are at an age at which it is extremely difficult to place them, and will he continue his efforts to find them employment?

We shall certainly do that. We are doing our very best in the matter.

asked the Minister of Labour for how long the level of unemployment in North Staffordshire has substantially exceeded the national average; and what steps he has taken to call to the attention of Government agencies and public authorities concerned with industrial expansion the need to create new opportunities for employment in this area.

The level of unemployment in North Staffordshire has been above that in Great Britain as a whole since the end of 1955, but only in January and February of this year has it been higher by more than 1 per cent. of the insured population. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is aware of the position in this area.

In that case does not the Minister agree that there is a need for new employment, in view of the decline and the short-time working in the pottery industry as well as the redundancies in the Royal Ordnance factories? In view of the existence of those factories, and of the fact that some of them are very well equipped, and in view also of past experience, could they be put to new kinds of production? Will that be borne in mind?

I agree that there is a real need to watch this position most closely, and in particular to see, if we can, that available capacity does not go to waste.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that West End bespoke tailors are refusing overseas orders, largely from the dollar area, because they are unable to obtain sufficiently highly skilled labour; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this.

Although I have not heard that export orders are being refused I am aware that there is a shortage of skilled workers. My local officers will continue to bring vacanies to the attention of qualified workers registering for employment. There is competition among school leavers for apprenticeships and learnerships with West End bespoke tailors and it is expected that all such vacanies will be filled at the end of the summer term.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that firms are unable to expand their businesses because of the shortage of labour, while there are at least 200 skilled coat makers who are unemployed in Italy and who are willing to come over here to work? Will my right hon. Friend try to persuade the trade unions concerned to change what is an obstructive attitude in this matter, and will he also try to get English people interested in this trade, for of thirty-one trainees at present working in London only one is English?

We have surprisingly few vacancies at the London employment exchanges for these people. As for apprenticeships, I am told there are always more applications than there are vacancies. Although there may be difficulties at present, they will be of very short duration. When the summer term ends, my people are confident that all these places will be filled.

What is the difference between apprenticeships and learnerships?

I shall have to have notice of that question.

While there is an adequate number of what we may describe as second-grade coat makers, the grade of workers who produce first-class bespoke work in the West End are just not available.

I have noted the point my hon. Friend has made.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will propose to the International Labour Office, through the representatives of Her Majesty's Government, that a convention be prepared for submission to the Governments concerned laying down uniform taxation of profits on investments in colonial and underdeveloped countries with a view to equalising the opportunities of such territories to obtain the capital they require.

No, Sir. The International Labour Office is not the appropriate body to adopt international agreements on this matter.

While the proposal may be new, why should not the International Labour Office deal with matters of capital as well as conditions of labour? Would it not be greatly to the benefit of Colonial Territories if they did not have competition in capital from different countries, and for Kenya, which has to meet very 'high returns in Northern Rhodesia?

Whatever the merits of that may be, the needs of the territories vary so much that it is inevitable that the taxes raised should vary, too. I think that a substantial contribution towards the idea which the hon. Gentleman has in mind should be made by Part IV of the Finance Bill now going through the House, which enables people to plough back profits without incurring liability to United Kingdom tax.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further contribution is to be made by Her Majesty's Government towards the remaining United Nations Emergency Force costs for 1957.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions have been given to Her Majesty's Government's delegate at the United Nations in respect of finance for the support of the United Nations Emergency Force.

As my hon. Friend informed the House on 15th April, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has been empowered to spend on the United Nations Emergency Force up to the end of 1957, 10 million dollars to be raised by assessed contributions from Member States and a further 6½ million dollars to be raised by voluntary contributions. Her Majesty's Government propose to contribute their assessed share, 7·81 per cent., of the first 10 million dollars and a corresponding proportion of the supplementary 62 million dollars, a total of 1,288,650 dollars. The United Kingdom Permanent Representative at the United Nations has informed the Secretary-General accordingly.

Is the policy of the Government that the United Nations Emergency Force should be retained on the borders of Israel and Egypt so long as there is a danger of conflicting interests, and, if so, will they be willing to contribute their fair share of the costs of the Force so long as it is considered necessary to retain it?

Yes, it is certainly the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the Force should stay in the area as long as it is thought necessary. I think we do pay our fair share.

In view of the fact that the Americans have offered to pay 50 per cent. of the 6½ million dollars required, provided that the other nations together raise the other half, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what prospects there are of that other half being subscribed?

The Secretary-General has not so far published any accounts of other contributions received.

Will my fight hon. and gallant Friend tell us how the payments in dollars are made? Does it mean the purchase of dollars? How are these transactions carried out?

These sums ate always quoted in dollars, but in fact we pay part in sterling.

Is not it a fact that part of our liability for the Emergency Force is for equipment supplied by the United Kingdom? Would it not be possible for the United Kingdom, in these special circumstances, to make equipment available without payment, to try to tide the Force over this rather difficult period?

The hon. Member is quite right. Part of our contribution is for goods and services supplied by the War Office and the Air Ministry. I will certainly consider the point that he has just made.

Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether any nation, and if so which, has refused to make a contribution towards this Emergency Force?

No, Sir. I have not that information.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose that the cost of maintaining the United Nations Emergency Force should be incorporated in the normal United Nations Budget.

No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government regard the special fund set up by the General Assembly to meet expenditure on the United Nations Emergency Force as the proper source of money for this purpose.

We have, however, consistently maintained that the fund should be financed by assessed contributions from all members of the United Nations.

As it is estimated that for next year, 1958, the cost of keeping the U.N.E.F. going will be in the neighbourhood of 25 million dollars, and in view of the fact that the Soviet Union has apparently said already that it will not pay a cent of that, and that we are already short on last year's payments, how does the Minister of State imagine that this money, without which the U.N.E.F. cannot survive, will be found —or is he not so very anxious that the money shall be found?

I must say that I rather resent the implication in the last part of that supplementary question. I have said already that the United Nations Emergency Force has the full support of Her Majesty's Government, and we have said so all along; but the United Nations Emergency Force, as its name implies, was set up to deal with an emergency situation, and we think that the present way of funding it is the best. No doubt the Secretary-General himself will produce further suggestions if the money is not available.

Perhaps, then, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell the House at what time the British Government announced they would pay their share of the 6½ million dollars which was required, of which the Americans offered to pay half, and many of us were informed that no offer was made by Britain then?

If the hon. Gentleman wants that information, perhaps he will put down a Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the decision of the United Nations Command in Korea regarding the provision of modern weapons.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the decision to equip the United Nations forces in South Korea with more modern arms was considered by the United Nations; whether nuclear weapons are to be included in these new arms; and what representations on this matter have been made by Her Majesty's Government's delegate at the United Nations.

As was made clear in the statement made by the United Nations Command in the Military Armistice Commission on 21st June, the action now proposed has been made necessary by the continued violations by the Communist side of Article 13 (d) of the Armistice Agreement and the requirement to restore the balance of forces in Korea. There is no intention of abrogating the Armistice Agreement as a whole, and the United Nations Command intends to continue to observe all its other provisions.

The other member countries of the United Nations directly concerned including the United Kingdom were informed in advance of the United Nations Command's intentions. We appreciate the reasons for the proposed action and agree with it. As has been stated by the United States Assistant Secretary of Defence, no atomic weapons are being introduced into South Korea at this time. No representations have been made by the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom at the United Nations.

I am arranging for copies of the statement made by the United Nations Command in Korea and of a statement made by the American Department of Defence to be placed in the Library of the House.

Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether adequate protest has yet been made to the Communist Powers concerning these quite unwarrantable breaches of a highly important Armistice Agreement? Would he not agree that such breaches by the Communists completely poison the international climate and make the task of reaching wider agreement even more difficult and hazardous than it was before?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Continued representations have been made in the Military Armistice Commission about such violations, but without avail.

If the forces are beginning to build up again in this part of the world, is it not even more essential that there should be, at any rate, some liaison between what is called the United Nations Command and the United Nations itself? Am I to understand from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer to my Question that there is no consultation at all and no connection at all between the United Nations and this Command which styles itself the United Nations Command?

No, Sir, it is understood that the United States Government, acting for the United Nations Command, are to make a report shortly to the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make the United Nations Committee's report on Hungary available as a White Paper.

No, Sir. This report will be distributed in the United Kingdom in the form in which it is being printed by the United Nations Organisation, and will be available to hon. Members through Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend feel that to publish this report as a White Paper would give it very much wider circulation and that in refusing to do that he is missing an extraordinarily valuable opportunity to remind public opinion in this country, as well as elsewhere, of the true nature of the Russian power and the cynical brutality with which it suppresses habitually any aspirations for freedom?

Whilst I agree with the second half of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I do not agree with the first part. This is a document of about 300 pages, an expensive publication, and I think that a White Paper would not be cheaper. I do not think that the impact of the White Paper would have the same effect in this country as a United Nations publication.

Whilst we would agree with the Minister of State that this report produced as a United Nations document may carry more effect than a White Paper, may I ask whether he will make arrangements to ensure that it will be equally available not only to hon. and right hon. Members but to other members of the public at a very reasonable price?

I will certainly bear that in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United Nations Relief and Works Agency has now received enough new pledges and payments to allow it to operate without cutting its services to the refugees.

The latest monthly report showed that additional pledges of just over half-a-million dollars had been made since January this year, but that over two million dollars of pledges for the current financial period were still unpaid.

Her Majesty's Government have recently had conversations with Mr. Labouisse, the Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and I understand that certain of these pledges are now being paid up, but that even so the funds at his Agency's disposal are not sufficient to enable the planned programme to be carried out in full. The Director has therefore made certain deferments and economies which in his opinion do not seriously affect essential basic services of the refugees.

I cannot say what other countries intend to do, but my right hon. and learned Friend announced to the House on 16th May the payments which Her Majesty's Government proposed to make in the twelve months beginning 1st July, 1957. The Director has also been informed that we are prepared to make available an additional 200,000 dollars in this period.

While thanking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for that answer, may I ask whether he is aware that the amount U.N.R.W.A. had to distribute was 6d. per refugee per day? Will he give an undertaking that the United Nations contribution will be the maximum that we have hitherto given?

I do not think that we could be accused of not being forthcoming in this matter, because, as I think the right hon. Lady knows, the United Kingdom and the United States between them have contributed over 90 per cent. of the Agency's income up to date. I had some talks with Mr. Labouisse and I fully agree with the right hon. Lady on the importance of this position.

Where countries have not paid their contributions, which are so essential for carrying out the programme in connection with refugees, do we broadcast over our information services to the countries that are falling down on their pledges? A little propaganda to these people, to stimulate them to do their job as well as we are doing it, might be effective.

I do not think that would be a matter for Her Majesty's Government. It would be a matter for the United Nations.

Whilst appreciating the absolute necessity of continuing to provide funds for services to refugees, may I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman what steps the Government are taking to deal with the question of refugees on a permanent basis, bearing in mind that these refugee services can never be anything more than rough first-aid and ultimately there will have to be a permanent settlement of the refugees and that until that is achieved the situation is good neither for the refugees nor for anybody else?

Her Majesty's Government are, of course, fully aware of that position and attach great importance to it, but I do not think that the hon. Member would expect me to answer that point in reply to this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement as to the disarmament proposals put forward by Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far the support of Her Majesty's Government for a suspension of nuclear tests is dependent on an agreement for the cessation of future nuclear weapon production.

Her Majesty's Government, in company with the Governments of Canada, France and the United States, tabled a joint statement in the Disarmament Sub-Committee yesterday, announcing their position with respect to the Soviet proposal of 14th June for a moratorium on nuclear tests. I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. This statement is now being discussed at the Sub-Committee.

My right hon. and learned Friend has given further consideration to the question of a statement or a White Paper on the current talks. He has come to the conclusion that the best way for him to try to meet the wishes of the House is to issue a White Paper. He proposes to do this in the course of next week.

Whilst expressing satisfaction that after all the hesitations and excuses—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—it has been found possible to agree to suspension of the tests, is the Minister aware that most of us will hope that the Soviet Union will find it possible to accept the two qualifications which go with this offer of suspension? May I put two questions to the Minister? Firstly, a period of ten months has been mentioned as the period of suspension. May I ask if this is the fact, and would not the Minister agree that it is somewhat inadequate? Secondly, as regards the proposed cut-off, if this is to mean unlimited inspection for limited results, should there not be some additional agreement, ultimately to go on to the complete banning of nuclear weapons?

First, I share the hope of the hon. Gentleman that the Soviet Government will be able to agree with our proposals. As regards his other two questions. I am sure he will agree that this is a most complicated matter to be dealt with by question and answer, and I hope that he will await the White Paper.

May I ask the Minister of State a question arising out of the official statement published this morning? In the event of a partial agreement being achieved, is it intended that nuclear test explosions shall be suspended forthwith, while steps are being taken to establish a control organ for the purpose of supervising the cessation of production?

I am afraid that I must give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the same answer, and ask him to await the White Paper.

Does the Minister not know what is in the statement?

Of course I do, but it is very difficult to deal with these points piecemeal, so I shall be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will leave the matter.

Since everything in this proposal turns on the scheme to be drawn up by the suggested Commission of Experts, will the Minister consider whether, in composing that Commission, it should include some representatives of nations not in the Sub-Committee, in view of the fact that a major purpose is to induce so-called "fourth" nations not to start to make nuclear weapons?

I am sure that will be considered by both the Sub-Committee and the Disarmament Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will offer to help for the relief of the Algerian refugees in Tunisia; and whether he will seek the co-operation of the appropriate United Nations agencies in this matter.

Her Majesty's Government have noted with concern the increasing number of Algerian refugees in Tunisia. They understand that the French Government have offered help and assistance through the International Red Cross. The Red Cross have asked their representative in Tunisia to see what help that body can give; and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has sent a special representative to investigate the situation on the spot.

Until the results of these inquiries are known, no firm conclusions can be reached on the matter.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that French troops in Tunisia have been attempting to drive the Algerian refugees back into Algeria, and that in firing on them they also fired on and wounded representatives of the Tunisian Government who went to protest about it? Is he aware that the whole situation on the Algerian-Tunisian border is in many ways as tragic as was the situation on the Hungarian-Austrian border—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."1—and will he please take up the matter seriously, as a representative of the Tunisian Government, Mr. Mongi Slim, who was a member of the United Nations Commission investigating the Hungarian situation, has now appealed to the United Nations to protect his own country?

Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the difficulties of the situation. I should like to say, with respect, that I do not think the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions have helped it very much. We shall await the reports, and as soon as we receive them we shall consider how effectively we can help.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far, following the unification of the Soviet and Chinese embargo lists, it is still his policy to make exceptions to the export embargo in appropriate circumstances.

Our use of the exceptions procedure for exports of goods under embargo for China up to 30th May, 1957, applied to items which were not restricted for export to the Soviet bloc. There is no comparable procedure for items on the Soviet bloc list, with which the China list has now been equated. As my right hon. and learned Friend explained on 13th May, no exceptions have been made to permit the export of embargoed goods on the Soviet bloc list unless the circumstances were very special or only trifling amounts were involved.

Would not the Joint Under-Secretary of State agree that the exceptions procedure has been very valuable in maintaining some flexibility in the development of trade and in negotiations in the case of the China list? Would it not be a good thing, considering that many items on the list are not commonly regarded as military items at all, to extend this procedure now in relation to both the Soviet Union list and the China list?

The Soviet bloc list was drastically curtailed in 1954, and carefully drawn up, and I do not think that at this point there is any necessity to make use of that procedure.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received to his note of 16th April to the Spanish Government on the subject of Gibraltar frontier restrictions.

None so far. Further discussions on this subject have, however, been initiated with the Spanish Government.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable feeling in Gibraltar that their interests have been overlooked by Her Majesty's Government, and will he at least send a reassuring message to that loyal Colony to say that he is going into the matter? Further, would he consider sending an all-party committee of inquiry to Gibraltar to look into the question of the frontier, because it is obvious that the reports he, or Her Majesty's Foreign Office, are getting differ very much indeed from the actual situation on the frontier?

The hon. Gentleman has given me a good deal of information about this, which I have very carefully considered and which forms part of the new approaches. With regard to the assurance he asks for, this was given in the Adjournment debate when he raised the matter himself. As to the question of an all-party delegation, I think this does not arise at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government with a view to proposing to the Soviet Government the regular exchange of uncensored radio and television broadcasts.

We have been in touch with the United States Government through the normal diplomatic channel.

In view of the fact that an interview with Mr. Khrushchev was shown recently on television in this country without any attempt being made to censor it, would it not be a good thing if an arrangement could be made on reciprocal basis with the Soviet Union for the regular exchange of television and radio broadcasts?

This is obviously a matter of considerable importance which has to be looked at. It is important to look at the question of reciprocity in these matters, and we are going into it with great care.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been sent by the British Chargé d'Affaires in Peking to the protest of the Chinese Foreign Ministry against the permission granted by the Hong Kong authorities on 22nd March, for the shipment of the Nationalist jet fighter aircraft which landed at Kaitak on 31st January, 1956.

Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Peking has replied to the Chinese protest of 22nd June that, as has been previously stated, it is normal international practice that, if a military aircraft infringes the airspace of another country and lands there in the absence of hostile intentions towards the latter, or of recognition of a state of belligerency, the aircraft and crew should be allowed to return. I will, with permission, circulate the full text of the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Could the Joint Under-Secretary of State say at the moment whether or not this machine was engaged in a training flight, or was it on operational work, and can he say if it is one of the machines which indulge in attacks in that part of the ocean, in the Straits of Formosa, on peaceful shipping?

The aircraft was unarmed.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister inform the House how a military jet aircraft can be unarmed?

Order. That is not a point of order.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation has replied to the Council of Europe on the question of the increased cost of fertilisers.

Not yet, Sir. The Recommendation is under urgent consideration by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and has been referred for examination to the Committee of Deputies of the Ministerial Committee for Agriculture and Food. Her Majesty's Government will do everything possible to ensure that no undue delay occurs in consideration of the Recommendation by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.

Whilst appreciating that expression of intention, does the Joint Under-Secretary also appreciate that if the Council of Europe is to be more effective, we have to seek a more speedy implementation of its decisions? Secondly, if we are to strengthen the relationship between the Council of Europe and O.E.E.C. we must have a more speedy response from O.E.E.C.

I have indicated that we are pressing this matter as hard as we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the renewal of Syrian border attacks on Israel, and of Arab fedayeen activities in the Gaza area; and if he will therefore make representations to the parties concerned condemning these activities, in view of the danger which they constitute to peace in the Middle East.

I have seen conflicting reports from both Israel and Syrian sources of recent incidents on the Syrian borders and reports from Israel sources of recent incidents in the Gaza area. So far as we are aware no investigation by United Nations observers has been requested by either side and no independent report is therefore available. The United Nations representatives in the area are, of course, aware of the situation, and the parties concerned, as members of the United Nations, can if they think fit refer the question to the Mixed Armistice Commission or the Security Council. I do not think on the evidence available that Her Majesty's Government have any special status for unilateral intervention as suggested, and we are in any case not in diplomatic relations with the Syrian or Egyptian Governments.

As very serious incidents of this nature have been taking place and only a few days ago they resulted in a death, and as the murderers and pillagers are coming across the Israeli borders, does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think it important for him to bring the matter to the attention of the United Nations to see what can be done to remedy the situation?

I am sure that those on the spot, if they think fit, will do as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Bulgarian Government have not yet paid compensation to the relatives of the British passengers in the Israeli aeroplane which was shot down over its territory in 1955; what steps he has taken to press for this compensation to be paid; and with what result.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." Since the submission of the claim for compensation for the relatives of the United Kingdom citizens killed in this accident, representations have been made to the Bulgarian Government on several occasions, but with no result.

The claim was submitted on 12th March, 1956; Her Majesty's Minister at Sofia raised the matter with a Vice-Minister in the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 21st August, 1956; on 31st January, 1957, he addressed a strong Note to the Bulgarian Government asking for proposals for a settlement as a matter of urgency; and on 15th March, 1957, he again took the matter up with a Vice-Minister in the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is a matter of very serious gravity that two years afterwards no compensation has been paid, in spite of the promise made at the time, to the relatives of the victims who were brought down in a murderous manner without any excuse? Does he not think that pressure should be brought to bear continuously and as effectively as possible on the Bulgarian Government to get compensation for those concerned?

The Bulgarian Government have gone back on their original promise. The question of bringing effective pressure to bear on them involves a certain number of difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's conciliation efforts on the question of Cyprus.

The offer of conciliation in the Cyprus question was made not by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as such, but personally by the Secretary-General in accordance with the resolution adopted unanimously at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministerial meeting in December, 1956. Any progress report is therefore a matter for Monsieur Spaak.

Cannot the House be informed whether any talks have taken place or whether there is a complete standstill, especially as it has been told that any political settlement in Cyprus must await a report of the N.A.T.O. effort?

I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the original answer.

Since it appeared when the statement was made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the debate on Cyprus that Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to it, are we to assume from the reply that the effort on behalf of N.A.T.O. has completely failed and that we must take a fresh initiative?

No, Sir; I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can draw those conclusions. We still attach great importance to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes taking in view of the fact that the closing of the Suez Canal to other shipping in order to permit the passage of a submarine, or submarines, is a breach of Article 1 of the 1888 Convention, which forbids interference with the free use of the Canal.

I am aware that according to a news agency report the Egyptian Suez Canal Authority announced its intention of closing the Canal on the night of 22nd June. We have no evidence that the closure in fact took place or that the alleged closure was connected with the passage of submarines through the Canal.

Do not the Russians appear to be doing some very curious and mischievous things in the Mediterranean, including sending warships through the Canal for the first time in forty years? Is it not also the case that on the night of 26th June a Russian cruiser and three destroyers passed through the Straits of Gibraltar on their way to the Eastern Mediterranean? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman confirm that the Suez Canal will not be closed on any occasion through the intervention of these Russian warships?

I am afraid that I cannot answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I agree with what he said in the first part, which was answered last week by my right hon. Friend, that these are indeed disturbing events.

Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to satisfy themselves that such things as these are not in direct contravention of the 1888 agreement?

If we were sure that such things had taken place, we should certainly examine that point.

Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain to the House exactly what contravention of the 1888 Convention might be involved? Does not the Convention specifically provide for the free passage of war vessels through the Canal?

As I said, if I were sure that this had taken place I should examine it and see whether an infringement had occurred.

Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that the action of the Suez Canal authority in suspending traffic through the Canal on a number of occasions in recent weeks is a breach of the 1888 Convention?

There are, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, many other administrative and more legitimate reasons for a temporary closure of the Canal, such as maintenance or the clearing of a wreck.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make an interim payment to British nationals expelled from Egypt on account of claims lodged.

Her Majesty's Government have every sympathy for British nationals evacuated from Egypt and have already made substantial payments through the Resettlement Board for the interim relief of hardship. We are now considering extending the definition of "hardship" to include hardship arising from prolonged deprivation of assets. I understand that a statement will be made shortly.

Is not my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in March an undertaking was given by the Joint Under-Secretary to make releases from the blocked accounts in the United Kingdom of former British residents and institutions, but no such releases have been made? Will he make the most urgent representations to the Treasury?

I fully realise that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members feel deeply about the matter, as do Her Majesty's Government, and I ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which will be made shortly.

While we all welcome what the Minister of State has said, might I assure him that if the Government can do something more to alleviate the great hardship of these British subjects, who have suffered through no fault of their own, they will have general support?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that it is now some six or seven months since this tragedy took place, and throughout history have not British Governments always had a reputation for looking after their own nationals? Will he give a definite assurance that the consideration of which he speaks will be an urgent one and that we shall have an announcement before the House rises for the summer Recess?

I made it clear that a statement would be made shortly. It will certainly be before the House rises for the Recess.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the trial of a number of British subjects in Cairo.

Four British subjects, who were arrested last August and September, were recently tried in Cairo on charges of alleged espionage, and four others were tried in their absence on similar charges. Of the eight, five were acquitted and three—one in absentia—were sentenced to terms of imprisonment of five and ten years. The acquitted men are now safely back in this country.

So far as the two men imprisoned in Cairo are concerned, I understand that the period during which appeals may be lodged does not expire until 10th July, and until then the case should be regarded as still being sub judice.

The Swiss authorities in Cairo have throughout done their best for these men, and succeeded in ameliorating their conditions of detention in many ways. The men and their families have for their gratitude to be expresed to the Swiss authorities; in which I am sure the House will wish to share.

In view of the supplementary question put by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) a few moments ago, cart my hon. Friend say what action is being taken by the British Government to ensure the safety, life and limb of the two British subjects presently in gaol in Cairo?

Yes, Sir. As I stated, this matter is sub judice at the moment but we are considering what action is most likely to help the men who are now in prison.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

It might be convenient to discuss with this new Clause the new Clause, "Reduction of purchase tax from thirty per cent. to fifteen per cent", and the new Clause, "Reduction of purchase tax from fifteen per cent. to five per cent", both in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson).

I agree that it is convenient to take this group of new Clauses together.

The Government have a real chance here to do something practical to stop the new rise in living costs which is beginning. We therefore strongly press these Clauses on the Government, particularly the proposed relief in the 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. rates of Purchase Tax. A new round of inflation appears to be beginning and there is every sign that it will continue, unless the Government do something definite about it. All the evidence is that way.

At present, the Government are adding to the inflationary tendencies rather than doing anything to check them. A cut in Purchase Tax would at least countervail the other rises in the cost of living which are now threatened in rates, rents, food prices, and in the new National Insurance contribution and all the other burdens which are being imposed by the Government on housewives, and which have completely brought to an end the so-called plateau of prices, such as it was, of last year.

If the Government acted on this group of new Clauses, a real contribution to preserving the value of the £ would be made. The group covers the 5 per cent., 10 per cent., 15 per cent., and 30 per cent., rates of Purchase Tax and includes the following household goods and necessities, to mention a few, which are now subject to tax: clothing, boots and shoes, many textile fabrics, floor coverings, wallpaper, furniture, and many domestic appliances, including sewing machines, commercial vehicles, cutlery, brushes and combs, razors and razor blades and last, but not least, soap.

I do not know whether the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary realise that the Government are still imposing tax on ordinary domestic soap. I recall that Lord Chandos, when in opposition, used to argue with great vehemence that it was the last form of iniquity of a really depraved Government to impose tax on soap and that is one of the forms of tax which we are discussing. Over a very wide range of goods, especially with clothing, boots and shoes and furniture, Purchase Tax has been extended by the Government to a large number of goods which were not subject to it previously.

Under the Labour Government, 80 or 90 per cent. of clothing, boots and shoes, and many textile materials and a large proportion of furniture products were entirely exempt from tax. Far more things in this range are now being taxed than were before. I recall that Mr. Peake, as he then was—he is now Lord Ingleby—promised from this Box, in 1950, that under a Tory Government Purchase Tax would be removed from everything except a few luxuries. That proves once again the never-ending dishonesty of the party opposite. I include the whole lot. I am not suggesting that any one is worse or better than the other.

May I draw your attention, Sir Gordon, to the expression that my right hon. Friend has just used? He said that the party opposite was guilty of dishonesty. I was ruled out of order when I used that word yesterday.

I cannot discuss what happened to the hon. and learned Member yesterday.

As I was saying, it may be the case that this rash promise of Lord Ingleby led to his being translated to another place and that may be a warning to the Chancellor not to make so many romantic promises.

As a result of imposing this tax on so many more household necessities, the Government have raised the Purchase Tax burden on the public from £300 million total revenue in 1951 to £462 million in the present year. That is what the Chancellor calls reducing taxation. Indeed, even after the small Purchase Tax cuts in this Budget, of which the Chancellor has been boasting, by his own estimates, in page 27 of the Financial Statement, he expects the revenue from Purchase Tax this year to be higher than the actual receipts from the tax last year. More and more is being taken from the housewife by the Government in Purchase Tax with every year that goes by.

The Chancellor made one of his romantic speeches in this very Committee the other day when he said that taxes were too high and ought to be reduced. He said that Purchase Tax was too high and ought to be reduced, and the Press took him seriously for once. Here is his chance to do something practical upon those lines by accepting the new Clauses, or a substantial part of them. If the Chancellor goes around saying that taxes are too high and that he means to reduce them, and then, in practice, does nothing about it, he will not please the public; and it may be that he will not please the Prime Minister very much either. If he goes on making these rash promises he may suffer the fate of Lord Ingleby and also be translated to another place. In that sense, there is "plenty of room at the top."

As it is, to take one example, the manufacturers of commercial vehicles are recalling what the Chancellor said about this tax in one of his more remarkable speeches in the debates in 1950. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) quoted some of those remarks in a debate the other night and I am sure that he will be giving us warm support this afternoon in seeking to bring about these reductions.

I will only remind the Economic Secretary that the Chancellor, on 15th June, 1950, said of the Purchase Tax on commercial vehicles:

"We think that it is a very bad thing. We think it is a most extraordinary thing to impose Purchase Tax upon capital goods of industry, such as these vehicles are."

He went on, even more enthusiastically, to say:

"It is a vicious and vindictive tax which is calculated to hit at the small man particularly.…It is a tax on capital goods."

The Chancellor seemed to take a remarkably light-hearted attitude in his past speeches upon these subjects. I think that what I said on that occasion showed a little more caution than did the Chancellor's words. I commend what I said to the Economic Secretary:

"this tax is not intended to be permanent…but is needed only as long as the necessity for restraint on our investment programme"—

which was, naturally, great in 1951—

"and the maximum of exports are paramount."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 567–81.]

We should like to hear something about the Government's attitude to this tax on commercial vehicles in the changed circumstances of today.

It is no use the Chancellor or the Economic Secretary telling us that he would like to do all this, but that he just cannot afford it now because the Government have made so many other concessions. Compared with hon. Members opposite, in these debates we have been remarkably candid in opposing the large tax reliefs which, in the words of the present Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor has "given away" both in Surtax concessions and on the profits of the overseas trade corporations. Let the Government now decide to give this away, or a substantial part of it, to the housewife, by way of Purchase Tax reliefs and so do something really practical to stop the new round of inflation which is threatening us.

The Government have no policy for restraining the rise in the cost of living and preserving the value of the £. Here, at least, is something practical which they can do and which will be a great contribution. I hope that the whole Committee, regardless of party, will join together as it did yesterday in the matter of building societies' profits and press this matter irresistibly.

I rise not with any desire to curtail the debate, but to make two rather short points which may be worth making now. Clearly, all taxation is unpopular. To tax and to please is given to no man. Purchase Tax is a particularly unpopular tax, which all Chancellors would like to reduce if they could. The new Clauses, however, would be very expensive. The first would cost £46 million; the second, £60 million; and the third. £16 million. If, as I understand, Sir Gordon, you are calling certain subsequent new Clauses also, the total cost involved in the proposed new Clauses tabled by hon. Members opposite would be £157 million. That is a very large sum indeed.

The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) put these proposals forward as a cure for inflation, but I must own that I think he is being a little heretical. His master, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), once defined inflation as "too much money chasing too few goods "Under the Clauses, the amount of goods would stay the same, but the amount of money chasing them would increase by £157 million. I should have thought that that was an assignment with inflation if ever there was one.

Does the Economic Secretary really think that holding up the cost of living is doing something to check inflation? If he does, it is a very poor lookout for the country.

I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that Purchase Tax was kept on by his Government for the very same reason that it is kept on by ours. We believe that it is one of the measures that we can take against inflation.

When introducing his Budget, my right hon. Friend calculated that on fairly austere principles he could perhaps remit £100 million of taxation, and part of that sum he put to remitting Purchase Tax upon household goods. But he went as far as he thought he could go. We believe that there can be no question of going further, to the tune of £157 million.

Before I offer my observations to the Committee, Sir Gordon may I ask whether we are taking the proposed new Clause, to reduce the 60 per cent. rate of Purchase Tax, with the others?

We are taking the proposed new Clauses to reduce Purchase Tax from 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. to 1 per cent.; to reduce it from 30 per cent. to 15 per cent.; and to reduce it from 15 per cent. to 5 per cent.

Are we also taking the proposed new Clause which seeks to exempt musical instruments?

We are not taking that.

We appreciate the brevity with which the Economic Secretary made his point, but not the substance of it. If it is impossible to go any further in the way of concessions, the first question that springs to our minds is why it was possible to go any distance at all by way of tax concessions to those earning between £2,000 and £10,000 a year. If it were so very important to stop this money chasing goods, surely money in the hands of those people is just as bad as it is in the hands of the ordinary consumers, who find it very difficult to buy these essential commodities.

The Economic Secretary talked about the necessity for curbing inflation, but does he really think that trade union leaders will listen to any talk about planning on the wages front while they see, on the other hand, the continuance of this kind of tax upon essential commodities? It is no good the Economic Secretary expressing indignation or impatience. Of course, this matter is not directly mentioned in the new Clause with which we are dealing, but it is very closely bound up with it.

The sooner the right hon. Gentleman realises that to the ordinary consumer and worker this tax on essentials, together with the subsidies on essential foodstuffs, should be the absolutely first consideration in regard to any resources that we have, the better. Purchase Tax should come off, and the food subsidies should stay on.

I listened very carefully to the earlier debates we had on Purchase Tax, and I must say that I have never felt so frustrated when listening to a debate on that tax as I did then. I cannot think that there is any enthusiasm at all on either side of the Committee for this kind of tax. We are all losing patience with it. I am not now speaking about any question of relief in the total amount of taxation, but I am speaking of it as a method, and, as a method of collecting revenue, it is, surely, now discredited on both sides of the Committee.

It is a fact, of course, that in the Bill some concessions have been made, and the Economic Secretary reminded us of them. He said that, when the Labour Governments were trying to stop money chasing too few goods, we retained the Purchase Tax, but it is fair to remind him that we did not retain it on many of these articles which are now subject to tax. Many of these things are now being taxed by the present Government for the very first time either during or since the war.

The retailers and trading community of the country come into this as well as the consumer. In the autumn of 1955 we had these taxes imposed. The Government are now removing half of them, or half of them on a limited range of the goods which were newly brought into the tax range. What does the Economic Secretary think is happening to those goods which are still on the shelves of the retailer, on which tax has been paid, and which he still has to sell after this reduction?

Time after time, there have been deputations to the Treasury about some form of rebate on these articles on which the tax has been paid by the retailers but subsequently reduced. Of course, we have always had the reply that it is quite impossible to devise any water-tight system within which the rebate could be given. But the very fact that it is impossible to provide a workable rebate is surely another argument against retaining Purchase Tax at all.

I want to emphasise what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). If we are to have a general standstill in prices, and if we are to make any impression upon the trade union leaders—

A standstill only for the engineers.

and if we are to convince housewives that we are trying to get a genuine "plateau," then the very first thing we ought to do is to take the Purchase Tax off such items as electric light bulbs.

What happens in someone's home if an electric light bulb goes? One cannot just sit there in the dark thinking one is combating inflation, because one cannot afford to go out and buy another bulb. Of course, people have to replace items of that kind. Now, even after some reductions there is still a tax upon essential articles such as electric light bulbs at a time when the Government are giving away so much money to the higher income groups.

I plead with the Economic Secretary to try and appreciate the state of mind which is created among consumers and workers when they see this policy being put into operation. I hope that he will, in an intervention of somewhat greater length, be able to tell us, first, that he so abhors this indirect system of taxation, the Purchase Tax in particular, that the Government will make every effort to end it, and that, before ending it completely, they will, at any rate, remove the tax on these essentials on which, both during and immediately after the war, no tax at all was levied.

The Economic Secretary, in reply to the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) about the desirability of reducing, if not abolishing, Purchase Tax, spoke with commendable brevity. He made two short points which amount, really, only to one, namely, the argument that the Government cannot afford either to reduce or abolish the Purchase Tax because it would be far too expensive. It would cost, according to the right hon. Gentlemen, about £150 million annually.

In reply to the Economic Secretary, want to ask this question, a perfectly fair one, I think, which deserves some response. Would it really be a bad thing if the Government were not provided with £150 million to spend as and when they liked? For example, if they had £150 million less, they might refer the matter to the Minister of Defence, and he might revise his defence programme and curtail defence expenditure. Would that do us any harm? Of course not. The Government might curtail their normal expenditure, in response to demands made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I cannot for the life of me understand the validity of an argument which, in effect, says, "Do not deprive us of £150 million because, if you do, it will be impossible for us to carry on".

The other argument is that if we reduce Purchase Tax or, indeed, abolish it to the extent called for by my right hon. Friend in moving the new Clause, and £150 million which, ordinarily, because of the Purchase Tax, would go into the coffers of the Government remains in the pockets of the consumers, that would lead to inflation. I have often tried to find out what "inflation" really means. I understand that it may be put something like this. If people are given too much money and there are not sufficient goods available, that leads to inflation.

What is the difference, so far as inflation is concerned, between giving the £150 million to the Government and giving it to the consumers of the country? If the Government get the money, it leads to inflation; they have too much money. On the other hand, if one gives it to the consumers of the country, that leads to inflation; they have got too much money. I am bound to say that, if there is £150 million available, I would prefer to give it to the consumers rather than to the Government.

I want to address myself to what I regard as the crux of the problem. I have not taken part in these financial debates because, quite frankly, I am not an economic expert. Indeed, I am very grateful that I am not, because there is less confusion in my mind than appears to exist in the minds of the economic experts. They hardly ever agree. They are like doctors and, if I may say so with the highest respect, like barristers. They hardly ever agree. One listens to the debates on the Finance Bill and the Budget, in the House and in this Committee, and one hears scores of varied arguments, most of which cancel each other out. In the end, we do not know where we are.

What we are concerned with, above all, as I think hon. Members generally will agree, is how to reduce the cost of living. That is not a party matter; it is a matter of general concern. It is vital. It is fundamental. Unless we can successfully tackle the problem of how to reduce the cost of living, which, apparently, has baffled the minds of Governments for years, at any rate, since before the last war, then we are bound from time to time to have the wage demands which are resented by some hon. Members.

Indeed, they are not too well liked even by those who make them. Wage demands have to be made because of increases in the cost of living. It is no use cavilling about people making wage demands, or criticising trade union leaders because they seek to uphold the standard of living of their members. That is a lot of nonsense and does not lead us anywhere.

4.0 p.m.

How are we to reduce the cost of living? Do the Government know? During the past few years I have not heard in the House of Commons a single constructive proposal by any member of the Government which would lead me to believe that at last a solution had been found for reducing the cost of living.

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that the proposed new Clause is confined to the Purchase Tax.

I am grateful to you, Sir Gordon. That is precisely the point I am coming to. It was necessary for me to lead up to it.

Before I come to that point—if I have your good will—I would observe that even on this side of the Committee occasionally—I regret having to say it and there is nothing I deplore more than having to say it—when we demand that there should be reduction in the cost of living we do not present any constructive proposals except to say, "Reduce Purchase Tax," or "Curtail expenditure." Then, of course, we sometimes say, "Increase expenditure." So what does it matter? There is a great deal of confusion, uncertainty and lack of knowledge about it. I do not pretend to be able to postulate any kind of solution.

I come to the point of the new Clause. Here is an opportunity of reducing the cost of living by reducing the Purchase Tax. On the assumption—it may not be a very well-founded assumption, but it is worth trying—that manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of consumer goods will "play ball" and will not take advantage of the reduction in Purchase Tax to boost or to maintain prices, this is obviously one means of reducing the cost of living. A simple illustration is that if, instead of having to pay £20 for some household requirement I want, I pay only £15 or £16, there is an improvement in the cost of living for myself. That applies all round.

How can the Government say that this is not one means of reducing the cost of living? Of course it is. If they reject it I am bound to say with the utmost good will that they are bereft of any constructive solution. A Government should not be placed in that embarrassing position. We want to reach out to achieve a constructive solution of this very vital problem.

Now is the time, even if it means depriving the Treasury of £150 million. £100 million, or even of £50 million, to take this action. It is far better for it to be deprived of that money than for us to miss an opportunity of reducing the cost of living. That is why I support the proposed Clause.

The Economic Secretary, in his short intervention, made the statement, with which everybody agrees, that all taxes are unpopular. He added that Purchase Tax was particularly unpopular.

I agree; this is a bad tax. I do not think it could have been introduced at any time except during war. I doubt very much whether it would have been introduced by any Chancellor of the Exchequer in peace, or could ever be continued except in a time of full employment. If there came a period of unemployment of any considerable extent one of the first things that would have to be tackled is the doing away with the Purchase Tax. The tax is wrong in its conception.

I remember criticising the tax when it was introduced by the late Sir Kingsley Wood in his war Budget, in 1940. It was introduced to stop the manufacture of luxury goods, and it was confined largely to luxury goods in those days. Its other purpose was to turn the minds of manufacturers to the making of essential goods, particularly those needed for war purposes. The money to be saved by discouraging the purchase of luxury goods could have been invested in war savings, so helping to win the war. That is how Purchase Tax started.

The range of Purchase Tax increased, and after the war, in conditions of full employment, it was put not only upon luxury goods but upon ordinary every-day articles. It started as a 33¾ per cent. tax and went up in some cases to as much as 100 per cent. That is why one objects to it. It certainly has affected our export trade, which is cushioned upon our home trade. If inland trade is discouraged we find it much more difficult to build up exports. The tax also discourages production. It has a double economic effect.

I agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). One of the first effects of the tax is to reduce purchasing power, particularly that in the hands of the housewife, and that affects the whole market. The worker finds that he is not earning enough and then, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the worker asks for an increase in pay. Very often he does not want to do so, but is compelled by the inflation of the prices of things required for his home. I hope that the time is coming when, whatever Government may be in power, the tax will be done away with altogether.

It is now a revenue tax.