asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the approximate increase in annual income from rents since the Rent Act, 1957.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent annual income from rents has increased since the Rent Act, 1957.

Income from rent of land dwellings and other buildings rose from £763 million in 1956 to £1,176 million in 1961. The income is reckoned before providing for depreciation. The figures are estimated according to the definitions used in the National Income Blue Books.

Is not that a staggering figure? Is it not a fact that, each year, the millions of pounds transferred from the tenants' to the landlords' pockets will still further increase, as more and more houses become decontrolled through change of tenants, unless the Rent Act is amended? Will he give this matter serious attention?

I do not think that the hon. Member has fully understood the figures that I gave him. Of the figure of £1,176 million, two-fifths goes to the public authorities, and some part of 'the remainder is what is called imputed rent in respect of owner-occupied houses. Of the total, the proportion of domestic income represented by rents is 5 per cent., compared with 9½ per cent. before the war.

However much the Minister may try to whittle down the effect of these figures, do not they provide clear evidence of the fantastic extent to which the community is being held to ransom by a privileged minority of greedy landlords? Is it any use telling tenants of decontrolled houses that the incomes of their landlords have risen only by 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., as the Minister is trying to make out, when the increase is nothing less than blood money?

In putting his supplementary question the hon. Member is not facing the fact that the percentage of income represented by rents is little more than half what it was before the war.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage he plans to increase Government expenditure above the line during 1963–64.

I would ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the Estimates and the Financial Statement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the percentage of the gross national product which the Government have spent has fallen from 30·5 per cent. in 1952 to 26·1 per cent. this year, and that this very good progress is jeopardised by the enormous sums of extra money which the Government appear to be incurring? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to keep this percentage as low as he can?

The precise percentage which it is right to take depends, among other things, on the state of the national economy, as also upon the objects on which the money is spent. Announcements like that made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, although generally welcomed, add to expenditure.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider recommending the appointment of a Royal Commission on the recruitment, training and promotion policies of the Civil Service in view of the changed scope and nature of Government since the last review.

I doubt whether the time is ripe for another Royal Commission on the Civil Service. I agree that its functions are continually changing and developing, but I think we can adapt to meet this without requiring the apparatus of a major inquiry of this kind. If the hon. Member has any particular aspect of the problem in mind, perhaps he will let me know.

Is not it a fact that it is over a hundred years since we had the last fundamental review of the Civil Service? Is it not also the case that in that time the Government have become involved in business and commerce and therefore require within the Civil Service people who have some knowledge of those affairs? Could not they be recruited from these professions? Is not it time at least to consider by a high-powered Royal Commission whether some fundamental changes are required?

As I said, the functions of the Civil Service are continually changing and we seek to meet them by many changes in the system of training, promotion and recruitment. I do not accept the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that there should be a sort of fixed time interval between Royal Commissions.

Another hundred years?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Aberdeen trawler "Bervie Braes" of Aberdeen had recently to travel from Aberdeen to Skagen in Denmark for a winch which could have been supplied in Aberdeen and there fitted to the ship but for certain restrictive Customs regulations, thereby causing loss and unemployment to Aberdeen workers; and if he will alter those regulations in order to avoid their operation in these ways.

The parts needed to repair the winch were not available in Aberdeen and would have had to be specially imported. There need have been no delay in Customs clearance, but as there is no direct freight service between Aberdeen and Denmark the time taken to obtain the parts would have been about three weeks. The trawler manager therefore decided that it would be quicker for the trawler to proceed direct to Denmark for the repair. The suggestion that the decision was due to Customs requirements is incorrect.

Will the Minister look further into this matter? He is quite mistaken in thinking that the winch could not have been supplied in Aberdeen. Will he also look into the restrictive Customs regulations which, interpreted in that hostile way, are bad for trade, industry, commerce and employment in the whole of Britain, and particularly in Aberdeen? Will he therefore set up an inquiry of experts to look into the points that I have just made, with a view to seeing that the regulations are either amended or, alternatively, are properly and constructively administered in the interests of British trade, industry, commerce and employment?

I shall be happy to examine any further evidence that the hon. and learned Member cares to let me have. I am fully satisfied that the Answer that I gave him is correct. I am particularly satisfied that there are no unusual delays in Customs clearances such as this.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now introduce legislation to authorise Government loans to local authorities and building societies at 4 per cent. or lower interest rates, to permit 95 per cent. loans on pre-1919 houses at not more than ½ per cent. higher rates.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister realise that, despite the desperate housing need, particularly of young couples and of families living in overcrowded conditions, house buying is actually beginning to tail off in some areas because people cannot afford the mortgage interest rates? Is he aware that on Monday, 24 local authorities in the North-West decided to ask the Government to receive a deputation? If the Minister proposes to give the old reply that he cannot insulate housing from the general interest rates, why have the Government done it for the Ford, Colville and other organisations?

I think it would be right to say that interest rates are only one of the matters which have to be taken into account in considering this problem.

In the present economic circumstances how can the Government possibly justify these high interest rates?

The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that interest rates have been falling a little lately.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer if old-age pensioners on getting married continued to be assessed separately for tax.

I regret that the cost cannot be estimated.

As it cannot be very much, and as there is very real hardship on people in this position, will my right hon. Friend see whether he can help?

The question of the aggregation of incomes of husband and wife for tax purposes can go a good deal wider than in the case of pensioners. As my hon. Friend knows, we seek to help them particularly by the age exemption.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government will consider offering Miss Barbara Fell suitable re-employment according to her capacity and experience on her release.

No, Sir.

May I ask my right hon. Friend two supplementary questions? In view of the fact that this lady whom, incidentally, I have never met, has paid a very severe penalty for her foolishness, her indiscretion, but certainly not for spying, would it not be considerably unfair to carry on that punishment indefinitely? Secondly, does not my right hon. Friend agree that we are all becoming a little "spy conscious", including, indeed, some of the judiciary, with the honourable exception of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who presented this case fairly and impartially?

This case involves a personal tragedy, and I do not think that any of us would wish to add anything to that. But in the case of an officer of this standing and responsibility I feel that the suggestion of my hon. Friend, though most generously intended, is not really practicable.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the unemployment which exists, what plans he has for the allocation of more money for the erection of university buildings and other works to utilise more manpower for the necessary constructions.

The university building programme is already a large one, and in September I announced that an additional £5 million worth of work on it would be started in the calendar year 1963.

Will the Minister consider with his colleagues whether the present is the time for schemes relating to extensions to be taken up, in conjunction with other public works? Is he aware that unemployment is increasing in a serious manner? As there is a great shortage of space at the universities, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a start should be made at the present time?

If the hon. Gentleman will study my Answer he will see that that is exactly what we have done with the very large increase to which I referred. In fact, capital expenditure on the university programme in the current year is running at a rate of rather more than four times the level ruling in 1951–52.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that today's announcement says that unemployment has reached the figure of 815,000? How high must, it go before schemes such as those referred to by my hon. Friend are brought into operation?

If the right hon. Gentleman will study my Answer he will see that we have already taken action some weeks ago in respect of expanding the university buildings programme. The request of the hon. Gentleman is behind our action.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the universities consider that this increase is quite insufficient, especially the building for scientific work and research?

Of course, like other live organisations, universities would like to see an even greater expansion. But I am certain that they fully appreciate the very big improvements—not only the one to which I have referred but others which have been made in recent years.

In view of the very unsatisfactory Answer by the Minister, I wish to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give consideration to the need immediately to increase the sum made available to the University Grants Committee for university expansion, in view of the limitation of medical and scientific research by shortage of money for increased staff, higher salaries, buildings and equipment.

Substantial improvements in Exchequer support for the universities have recently been announced, and I have no further statement to make on this matter for the time being. I would remind the hon. Lady that it was announced some time ago that it is intended to review the level of recurrent grant next year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his replies this afternoon on this subject reveal a degree of complacency which shows that the Government seem to have no awareness of the importance of this matter to the future of the country and of the universities? Is he aware that the scale of the recent quinquennial grant to universities is so sparse that projects initiated some years ago by the Medical Research Council. which have had continuing support from the Council because the universities themselves could not finance them, are now in danger of being given up because the universities themselves cannot support them?

The hon. Lady's statement that the Government's action and statements indicate a lack of interest in the universities simply does not measure up to the fact that we have trebled expenditure on the universities over the last 10 years.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this shows the Government's failure to appreciate the national importance of scientific work and, secondly, the need for an increase in university facilities more than corresponding with the proposed increase in the number of students?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman studies the improvements that have been made, he will realise that we are in the full flow of the biggest university expansion this country has ever undertaken.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has received from the University Grants Committee about curtailments in the development programme of universities because of the inadequacy of the grants announced last March.

It is not the practice to disclose the communications passing between the University Grants Committee and the Government. The recurrent grants announced last March, however, only came into operation last summer, and this year's is 13 per cent. up on last year's, apart from what will be required for the recently announced salary increases.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that subsequent to March the Universities of Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham and Leeds, to name only a few, announced curtailments in their development plans and some of them said that there would be a standstill on admissions certainly by 1964? Is he satisfied that the new grant he has made will allow these universities to go ahead with their expansion? Is he aware that if he does not make adequate funds available it will not be possible to achieve even the Government's target of 150,000 by 1966, which we and the universities think is already totally inadequate?

I am satisfied that the grants already authorised—I have indicated that they are subject to review at a later stage—are fully sufficient to secure the Government's target.

In view of the national importance of this subject, is it not time that the Government came clean about financing the universities and told us what has been asked, what has been given, what more is needed, and stated the full figures instead of selecting the ones they think suit them?

The figures I have given, though the 'hon. and learned Gentleman may not like them, are the figures of the money actually being made available, which show, as I have indicated, a very great improvement over what has ever been done before.

Will the Minister confirm or deny the statement which is growing in currency that the chairman of the University Grants Committee, Sir Keith Murray, resigned by way of protest at the Government's paucity in this matter? The right hon. Gentleman referred us to the increasing programme that the Government have announced, but will he also bear in mind that there was a cut in the programme before? In view of the growing demand for places in Scotland and elsewhere, will he look into this matter with the greatest urgency?

On the first point, I am glad to say that Sir Keith Murray, the chairman of the University Grants Committee, is still in post and will continue in post until he concludes his 10-year term some time this year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out for universities, colleges of advanced technology, and teacher training colleges, respectively, the percentage increase in the number of places planned for the current quinquennium, and the increase or decrease in the ratio between the number of places to be available and the size of the relevant age group of the population.

The figures for entrants are 28 per cent., 57½ per cent. and 42 per cent. respectively. The answer to the second part of the Question is that the total number of places available for entrants is 7·78 per cent. of the age group in 1962-63 and will increase to 8·14 per cent, in 1966–67.

I take it that the latter figures given by the right hon. Gentleman are not given separately for the universities, colleges of advanced technology and teacher training colleges. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures for universities separately; that is to say, the proportion of the relevant age group which will be able to get university places?

Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman wishes. I answered his Question as it was put down. The figures are 4·59 and 4·57.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of abolishing Purchase Tax on furniture.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now remove Purchase Tax from furniture.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reduce the Purchase Tax on furniture.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the representations made to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 21st December, 1962, by the British Furniture Manufacturers Federated Associations, the National Association of Retail Furnishers and the National Bedding Federation, in relation to Purchase Tax on furniture and the restoration of the facility for add-to hire-purchase agreements; and what action he proposes to take.

As my right hon. Friend has explained, he decided that he could no longer justify the exceptionally high rate of Purchase Tax which had applied to television sets and some other goods; furniture, on the other hand, is taxed at the lowest of the existing rates. The tax yield from it is about £20 million per annum.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that a concession of £20 million from the Budget to help young married couples and the very important furniture industry in Scotland would be worth while? Would not the abolition of this Purchase Tax be worth while, because it would help Scotland and young married people?

I should like to express my sympathy with the objects mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. But I must point out that the effect of the abolition of Purchase Tax on furniture would be to reduce the retail price by 7 per cent. only. This is the information which the industry has given to me. I think it would be generally agreed that that could make only a small contribution to the whole problem. As I understood the case presented by the industry, to which I listened with care, it is not a reduction in Purchase Tax which the industry is seeking, so much as a restoration of the hire-purchase facilities.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate how grievously the increase in the Purchase Tax rate has hit the furniture industry, which fears that 10,000 of its 90,000 labour force will be unemployed by March if the present trend continues? Does he appreciate that a reduction of even 7 per cent. would be welcomed by young people and others who are setting up home for the first time and already are finding the burden more than they can bear? How can he justify an increase in the Purchase Tax on furniture in view of the concessions which have been made with regard to television and radio sets?

With respect to the hon. Lady, I am quite convinced that increasing the Purchase Tax on furniture from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. has not had the dramatic effect which she suggests.

Is not the Government aware that there is a very serious depression in the furniture industry and as the Government have actually doubled the tax on this industry when it was reduced on a number of other industries, is not that absolutely indefensible?

There is a very substantial difference between reducing high rates of Purchase Tax such as 45 per cent. to 25 per cent. and those that are taxed at 10 per cent. I do not think it is anything like as simple as the hon. Member suggests.

Would my hon. Friend agree that furniture is only one of a very large group of consumer articles on the 10 per cent. rate of Purchase Tax? Would he confirm that it would be grossly inequitable to relieve furniture unilaterally and leave at that rate of 10 per cent., for example, carpets, pottery, glass, clothes and many other important articles? Why should furniture alone be relieved?

With his customary lucidity and ability to get to the point, my hon. Friend has illustrated precisely the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of agreeing to a unilateral reduction of Purchase Tax in a case of this sort.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer What would be the cost of abolishing Purchase Tax on sewing machines.

Precise information is not available, but it is estimated that the cost would not exceed £2 million a year.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this industry, centred in Clydebank, there has been a drop in the labour force of 4,500 in the last three years? Would he not agree that if this tax, of only £2 million a year, were abolished it would enable sales to be increased? Then, with increased sales and more efficient manufacturing processes, the costs of production would fall and the product could be sold much more cheaply.

From inquiries I have made I am not satisfied that it is the imposition of Purchase Tax which has led to increased unemployment in this industry. It seems largely due to a reorganisation in one factory in the hon. Member's constituency, but of course I shall bear in mind what he has said.

The reorganisation is due to the fact that sales are not big enough. That is why the factory had to reorganise. If Purchase Tax could be reduced more sales could be made and more employment provided.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regulations with regard to the age of whisky, rum and brandy, he imposes on the consumption of these spirits in this country.

They cannot be released for consumption unless they are at least three years old.

Would my hon. Friend say what is the fundamental purpose behind this restriction? Is it, as I presume it is, the risk of damage to the health of those who drink them immature?

This matter has a long history, but I think that was one of the principal reasons.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there are any regulations, so far as age is concerned, with regard to the export of whisky from this country.

No, Sir.

Has my hon. Friend been so charmed by the magic which we all know exists in Scotch whisky as to be unaware of the harm done to people abroad from drinking it immature? Will he explain why he permits people in Europe to drink stuff which, on his own admission, is harmful to people in this country?

As my hon. Friend knows, this matter is under consideration at present.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he estimates that total demand within the economy will have risen by midsummer, 1963, and by the end of 1963, respectively; what will be the effect on unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Total demand within the economy will undoubtedly rise during 1963, and together with the other measures being taken by the Government, help employment. It is not, however, appropriate or indeed usual practice to speculate about precise figures in reply to a Parliamentary Question.

I find that uncertain Answer very unsatisfactory. Last year the Chancellor estimated that the demand would increase and it fell. Why should we trust the Treasury again? Did my right hon. Friend see yesterday's statement by the chairman of Richard Thomas & Baldwins (that last year's business for the steel industry was the worst on record? Is that the way to help the whole economy?

The statement by the chairman of that company, who made it no doubt on his own responsibility, does not purport to deal with the position of the economy as a whole. If my hon. Friend will study my Answer and reflect at the same time on the very substantial measures the Chancellor has taken to stimulate demand, I think he will be encouraged.

While the country will be shocked by the announcement today of a figure of more than 814,000 unemployed, making allowances for the weather, does it not still follow that there is a substantial increase in unemployment far above the level we have a right to expect? If it is the case, as I believe it is, that pumping Government money into the economy will substantially reduce unemployment over the next few months—which I understand is his policy—will the Chief Secretary explain to the country why the Government extracted so much extra money at the time of the pay pause and repeated the offence in the last Budget? Does he realise that the country will hold him to account for the failure for the second time in a few years correctly to judge what is happening to the economy and to allow a state of unemployment to arise which was wholly unnecessary?

The first part of that supplementary question, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has absolutely nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."] He knows that perfectly well. On the second part, the question of the measures taken at any particular time obviously must relate to the circumstances of the time. I gather that the hon. Member does not dispute that the measures we are now taking are appropriate to the situation.

The explanation which is required on this Question, and which I am pressing the Chief Secretary for, is why did he allow the situation to get into its present position in which there are so many unemployed when he had ample warning months ago of the situation which was likely to arise?

The hon. Member may seek to make that point and to make it in debate, but he knows perfectly well that it has absolutely nothing to do with this Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new special measures the Government have now taken to provide aid to developing countries from under-utilised resources in areas of unemployment such as Scotland, Merseyside, North-East England, West Cumberland, and Northern Ireland.

I am examining a number of specific proposals to link additional aid to the less developed countries with surplus production capacity in this country, but I cannot as yet make any statement.

What has happened to the promise, given by the First Secretary of State on behalf of the Prime Minister on 18th December, that there was a sum of £10 million ready to be allocated?

I have no further statement to make about it—[HON. MEMBERS:"Why?"]—and I have answered the Question which the hon. Member put on the Order Paper. We have much sympathy with the view he expresses for linking foreign aid to surplus productive capacity in this country, but I think the hon. Member himself knows enough about it to realise that it is a somewhat complicated matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for Customs facilities to be made available at Rochester Airport.

No, Sir. The estimated foreign traffic at this airport is at present far below the level which would justify such facilities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that every effort is being made now— this is a new project—to increase the traffic? Would he be good enough to indicate to the directors of Rochester Airport exactly what sort of traffic density they would have to show before they could hope to get this facility laid on?

I should be very happy indeed to give my hon. Friend, or anyone else, the appropriate information, but in fact no recent application for facilities has been made. Should there be an application for facilities, certainly it will be examined with care and sympathy.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a departmental committee to review the present arrangements for the financing of research in Great Britain through university funds, the Research Council and the Department for Scientific and Industrial Research, and through private British and foreign funds and to consider how far they are adequate to support projects of accepted scientific merit.

A Committee is already reviewing the organisation for the promotion of Government sponsored civil scientific research. The terms of reference and membership of this Committee were announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Science in a reply on 28th May, 1962, to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).

Is it not the case that the whole of this question is too compart-mentalisied and that in fact there is no adequate review going on of all the means by which research is financed in this country? Is this not the difficulty? Is not this one of the reasons Why there is not enough money and why scientists are emigrating to find better facilities? Will not the Minister seriously take note of the alarm which is being felt in the universities about this and appoint the committee I proposed?

The hon. Lady asked me in her Question to set up a committee. My answer is that we did so as long ago as 28ith May.

When can we expect a report? Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the Committee that this is a matter of real urgency?

I am certain that the Committee appreciates the serious importance of its task, but I cannot without notice indicate when a report is likely to be received.

Is there not an occasion for reviewing the deplorable situation whereby this country spends twice as much on advertising as it does on research? Is not this a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs?

I do not think that the question of expenditure on advertising arises on this point. What is clear, as has been made clear many times, is that there is a very substantial increase in expenditure on research and development.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a large factor in the high cost of loans from building societies is the present high rate of return on National Savings Certificates; and whether he will now bring these rates more into line with the broad national interest.

The building societies no doubt take into account the yields on many types of investment in fixing their rates for advances and deposits. Given the nature and purpose of National Savings Certificates it would be undesirable to change their terms frequently.

Is it not very desirable that building society rates should be lowered? They cannot be lowered whilst the present high level of return comes from National Savings Certificates. Ought not the Government to take action here?

I should point out that the full yield on Savings Certificates is attainable only if they are held for seven years to maturity, While the yield on building society investments is obtainable on money lent only for a few months. The two things are not strictly comparable.

Does the amount of interest paid have any material effect upon the amount saved?

That is a matter of judgment. In some cases, yes. In other cases, no.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the appointment of a successor to the present Secretary-General of the Arts Council.

The Arts Council is, I understand, announcing today that, with the approval of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it has appointed Mr. N. J. Abercrombie to be Secretary-General of the Arts Council from 1st April next.

Whilst welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him if when the new appointment takes place he will kindly convey to the Chairman of the Arts Council that, as the Council is subsidised by the taxpayer and by Parliament, any statement emanating from the Council commenting on policy and any statement on matters affecting the Arts Council should be made by the Chairman of the Arts Council? Will my right hon. Friend also kindly convey at any rate my disapproval of the fact that when a suggestion was made of perhaps transferring the Arts Council from the Treasury to a Ministry the language used by the Secretary-General on this did not measure up to the kind of language that we expect from somebody who is paid by Parliament?

I will see that my hon. Friend's views are conveyed to the noble Lord the Chairman of the Arts Council.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now provide loans at a low rate of interest to local authorities undertaking capital works in pursuance of his policy.

No, Sir.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that the burden of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House on 17th December was an appeal for local initiative and local effort in getting more capital investment to help to relieve unemployment? Is it not ridiculous to make such an appeal and yet have a monetary policy which prevents local authorities from borrowing at under 5⅞ per cent.?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that interest rates are only one factor for local authorities to take into account when deciding their capital investment programme?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with members of the Trades Union Congress General Council on the problem of rising unemployment.

The meeting took place on 2nd January at the request of the Production Committee of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, and there was an exchange of views about the problems of areas of relatively high unemployment.

Will the Chief Secretary complete that report by indicating the great disappointment of the trade union leaders at the limited scope of the Government's proposals? Is not their dis- appointment amply justified by the fact that the unemployment figure is announced today as having reached over 814,000?

The trade union leaders are perfectly articulate and, I understand, made a statement as to their own views at the time. There is no need for me to add to it.

Why is the Chief Secretary answering this Question? Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider that the figure of unemployment is sufficiently grave for him to come to the House and give a statement about his own discussions? May I ask the Chief Secretary when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to deign to come to the House and tell us what permanent measures he is going to take to keep the level of employment high and the level of unemployment low instead of the miscellaneous provisions we are getting at the moment.

I very much resent the tone of that question. [HON. MEMBERS:"Why?"] The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that my right hon. Friend answers regularly in the House on Tuesdays and that I and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary answer on Thursdays. As I was myself present at the meeting in question, I am in a perfectly good position to report to the House on the meeting and the hon. Gentleman knows full well that his insinuation that my right hon. Friend is not concerned about the level of unemployment is utterly unworthy of him.

Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that the present situation demands his own personal account of these conversations? The Chief Secretary does not carry the responsibility. It is the Chancellor's responsibility and it is the Chancellor who should come to the House to account for his administration and gross failure at the present time.

If the hon. Member cares to use such Parliamentary knowledge as he has to put down a Question to my right hon. Friend on the day on which my right hon. Friend habitually answers, my right hon. Friend will be just as glad as I am to deal with the hon. Member.

What is this routine nonsense that the Chancellor cannot come to the House on the day on which the Chief Secretary is here? Are we really so much the creatures of routine that the fact that the unemployment figure has reached over 800,000 means that we cannot demand the presence of the Chancellor on an afternoon like this?

The hon. Member knows perfectly well that this is an arrangement which has persisted in the House and has been accepted by the House for a great many years. The hon. Member is not yet in a position to alter the arrangements of the House.

I think that we should now direct our attention to another matter.

On a point of order. May I ask whether there is, in fact, any such rule? Has it ever been substantiated?

I shall have to check. I think that I remember that there was some announcement about it, but I would rather not answer off the cuff.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual Purchase Tax yield on rucksacks and tents, respectively.

Ordinary tents are not taxable. I regret there is no separate information about the yield of tax from rucksacks.

Is it not anomalous that tents should be free of Purchase Tax while rucksacks are subject to the tax? What is the point of the Ministry of Education encouraging young people to go in for outdoor sports and exercise if the Chancellor taxes one of the ways by which this is made possible? Will the Economic Secretary look at this matter at the appropriate moment?

This situation has obtained for a very long time. It obtained, in fact, when the hon. Member's distinguished predecessor, Dr. Dalton, was the Member for his constituency, but I will certainly make a fuller inquiry into it, as the hon. Member asks.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the Ayr County Council regarding their formal request for the establishment of a duty-free airport at Prestwick Airport.

Their request has been acknowledged and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have arranged some preliminary discussion of it with them.

My hon. Friend will, of course, bear in mind that there is a firm conviction in Scotland, particularly in the west of Scotland, that apart from its other advantages the existence of this tax-free zone at Prestwick Airport might well induce southern industrialists to come to the nearby development districts and so create employment which we badly need in Scotland?

That will certainly be borne in mind, but the position is very complicated and will need a great deal of discussion and inquiry.

As this suggestion has been before the Government for many-months, can the Economic Secretary say what consideration has been given to it and when we may receive a final reply?

A good deal of consideration has been given to the matter. The difficulty is that some of the ideas which have been expressed are not entirely clear. It is that aspect of the matter which is under investigation. As to endeavouring to give a specific date when the inquiry might be completed, I am not in a position to do that today, but I will endeavour to give the right hon. Gentleman additional information if possible.

May we have an assurance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will himself take a personal interest in this proposal because it is imaginative? It is technically difficult but it is the kind of venture which would lead to a considerable growth of employment in an area which has been badly hit.

I think that I can certainly give the hon. Member that assurance.