HC Deb 13 December 1948 vol 459 cc964-79

10.10 p.m.

Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 5th November, 1948, entitled the Purchase Tax (No. 3) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 2398), a copy of which was presented on 5th November, be annulled. This Prayer raises a short but important point. Before this order came into operation on 15th November all floor coverings were subject to Purchase Tax at the rate of 33i per cent. This order exempts from Purchase Tax floor covering consisting of tiles or strips not exceeding 450 square inches in area. Hon. Members will find it easier perhaps to appreciate exactly what that means if they realise that 450 square inches is about the size of one page of a large newspaper. Any reduction of or exemption from Purchase Tax is normally welcomed by my hon. Friends and myself, and at first sight I would say that the provisions of this order certainly look attractive. But, in my submission, on closer examination the reverse is the case. Even in the short time this order has been in operation experience indicates that its effect is both harmful and unfair and I would ask the Economic Secretary if the Treasury will be prepared to consider now either removing all Purchase Tax on floor coverings or, if they are not prepared to equalise the position in that way, to equalise it by applying the same rate to all floor coverings. I hope I shall be able to give good reasons for that proposal.

I would ask the House to consider the position with regard to rubber floor coverings and linoleum. Those have been very largely used and it has been found as a matter of general experience in the case both of linoleum and of rubber floor covering that large pieces are best and give the most satisfactory results. Since the order came into operation, however, a demand has arisen for cutting up large pieces of linoleum and rubber floor covering into pieces, small enough to escape the Purchase Tax that is to say, pieces smaller than 450 square inches in area.

The House will appreciate that if the result of this order is that good large pieces are cut up into small pieces merely in order to escape tax, that is very bad economy from the general point of view. I am not for the moment dwelling on the effect on particular interests, but from the broad national point of view it is very unsatisfactory to have a great deal of labour employed on cutting large pieces into small, and a great deal more labour involved in laying the smaller pieces. Obviously, it requires a great deal more labour to lay a lot of small pieces than a few large ones. When the result is that the material gives a less efficient use, then I say that this order is contrary to the public interest.

Apart from the general aspect of the matter—the waste of labour and materials involved—the order also operates unfairly. The rubber and linoleum industries are well established British industries. Their floor covering products have been in general use. Recently they have been subjected to formidable competition by tiles made of cork composition which are used for floor covering. Among their competitors in particular there is a subsidiary of an American company which recently started manufacturing in this country. This competition is certainly not to be discouraged. Indeed, the linoleum and rubber industries are very well prepared to meet fair competition on equal terms. They expect it, and we in this House should certainly not discourage it, but I submit that it should be on equal terms. It is rather hard to expect these well established British industries to face this new competition if it is to have the advantage of 33⅓ per cent. Purchase Tax.

In another way, which perhaps is less important but still worth mentioning, the order operates unfairly between particular firms. If a firm which is registered for Purchase Tax cuts up rubber sheets in response to this demand, it will not pay any Purchase Tax. On the other hand, if a firm that is not registered for Purchase Tax cuts up rubber sheets, it will not escape Purchase Tax because it has already paid the tax to the manufacturer and will not be able to recover it.

That is a minor but still serious problem which I hope the Economic Secretary will take into account. The purpose of the Government in making this order was no doubt perfectly reputable. They wanted to cheapen the cost of providing floor covering in the new houses which are being built. They thought that the cork tiles, which will especially benefit from this order, would be exclusively used in the new houses. I think that they are a long way out. The fact is that these cork tiles have entered into competition with the linoleum and rubber floor coverings over a very wide range indeed. I should like to read two paragraphs from a letter from a firm of cork tile manufacturers to a furnishing company. They say: We have much pleasure in informing you that the Purchase Tax on cork flooring has now been removed as from 15th November and we can, therefore offer our cork tiles as follows … Then follow their specifications. The last paragraph says: We do not know how long this material will remain free from Purchase Tax and, therefore, we strongly recommend that you should place your orders with us as soon as possible. I think that firm correctly appreciated that this order is at least vulnerable to criticism. It is unfortunate that the Treasury did not have more consultation with the various interests concerned before making this order, and I cannot help thinking that there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding, because the Economic Secretary, on the 6th December, in answering a supplementary Question which I asked, said this: The exemption affects only materials actually used for flooring and not those simply for covering floors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 37.] The order we are now discussing, deals with floor coverings. It is not concerned with the materials used in the construction of floors. The whole purpose of this order is to deal with floor coverings, and I cannot help thinking that the Treasury, and, no doubt, also the Ministry of Works, have been confusing the question of floor coverings with that of floor construction.

I hope very much that, after the Economic Secretary has heard more of this discussion he will be prepared to remove these difficulties, either by taking the Purchase Tax off floor coverings altogether, or, at least, by equalising it among the various classes of materials.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

I beg to second the Motion.

It was written of the spiritual ancestors of the present Government that "this sort goeth not out save by prayer and fasting." We have had a discussion on fasting, and now we come to the Prayer. I believe this order was drawn up as the result of a thoroughly well-intentioned muddle on the part of the Treasury, and I believe that that muddle was partly revealed in the supplementary answer given by the Economic Secretary last week, to which the hon. Baronet has drawn attention. I think the Government believed that they were helping to reduce the prices of building materials, and thought, no doubt, it would be thoroughly proper to put a ceiling price on floors, an assumption thoroughly characterisitc of the topsy-turvy economics of the Economic Secretary. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the order, which bears the names of two Lords of the Treasury—it would, no doubt, be improper to speculate whether they were fully conversant with the matter when they signed their names—he will see that it specifically refers in the second paragraph to floor coverings. Therefore, whatever the intentions of the Treasury may have been, the fact remains that what they have done is bound to affect the price of floor coverings, and not floors.

I feel that the matter has not been properly considered by the Treasury. At the time of the hon. Baronet's question and of the supplementary answer already quoted, the junior hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) put another supplementary indicating his disapproval' of certain provisions of the order. The following day, when I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question and directly referred him to this matter, he merely said that he did not accept the implications. I do not believe that the 24 hours between the two Questions gave the Chancellor sufficient opportunity to consider the point raised, because, if he had, he would not have discussed the matter with that perhaps habitual air of airy superciliousness. I believe he would have realised that there is here a point of substance.

What has happened is this En order to get this particular type of floor covering the exemption provided by this order, there is already ample evidence available that labour and money are being employed for no other purpose than that o cutting up perfectly good sheets of rubber floor covering into sizes small enough to get through the sieve of this Purchase Tax exemption. It might be that, in a time of high unemployment, that would be justifiable as an unemployment relief measure, but as right hon. Gentlemen opposite are always telling us that we are now in a time of full employment, it appears absurd to provide economic incentive to an otherwise wholly useless use of labour. There is no practical merit, as I understand it, in the smaller unit of floor covering as opposed to the larger. It is, to some extent, largely a matter of taste, but, as I understand it, the smaller one makes a bigger demand on labour, both for manufacture and for laying.

I suggest to the Economic Secretary that now that this error has been revealed. it would be the wise and sensible thing to admit it. There is no major political issue dividing the two sides of the House on the question; it is a pure question of administrative expediency and efficiency. It would be, I hope, quite unworthy of the Economic Secretary's high personal reputation in this House if he were to refuse to admit an error out of sheer obstinacy. I do not believe that the Economic Secretary will so conduct himself, and I hope and believe that the error, having now been brought to the light of day—and there would have been no need for this Motion to be put down at all had the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer been a little more receptive to new ideas than he was last week—the Economic Secretary will do his best to put it right.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Erroll (Altrincham and Sale)

The House has been fortunate on this occasion in having had some preliminary review by the Economic Secretary of the Treasury's ideas on the subject of this order. He gave some inkling of the intentions behind this order in reply to the Question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) on Monday last. It was shown in that reply that the intention of this order was to reduce housing costs by the removal of Purchase Tax from a particular building material. I only wish that industrial costs, and the costs of many professional services might be similarly reduced by the removal of Purchase Tax; for instance, on the necessities of the medical profession and industry generally.

It is indeed unfortunate that the Government should only remove Purchase Tax on one item which might help their own particular ends. We have, as well, the harm which is being done by having a differential tax on what are essentially similar products. This is not the first time that the Treasury has embarked on such a mistaken policy. We have the anomaly of tractors for agriculture—vehicles running on tax free fuel if it is paraffin, and heavily taxed fuel if it is petrol. Here we have a similar anomaly. If the flooring is in large sheets, it is taxed, and if in small squares it is tax free. I can only think that the mistake in this order has come about through the Minister not fully appreciating the wide usage of the small square tiles. It was suggested, in his answer, that larger sizes are not generally used by builders and, therefore, any discrimination involved would be negligible. But, of course, the reverse is the truth, Tiles of the description contained in the order are used on a wide scale for all manner of commercial, industrial, and office buildings.

For example, the new offices of the British Overseas Airways Corporation have recently been re-covered with tiles of a description coming within the scope of this order. The effect of the order—and it is quite an important effect—is, therefore, to discriminate between the suppliers of lino in rolls and the suppliers of lino and other floor coverings in squares or tiles. It is a most unfair discrimination, particularly as a number of substitute floor coverings are now coming into the market almost exclusively in small sizes, which make them exempt from Purchase Tax. In view of the serious anomalies which have been shown to exist, I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will accept our Prayer.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. John Lewis (Bolton)

It must be a matter of regret to those who sit on this side of the House that they have been inclined to the view that every time the Opposition moves a Prayer it is under suspicion—and I think for this they have themselves to blame, because in the past on so many occasions the arguments they have put forward have been so unconstructive and pettifogging in character, instead of drawing attention to matters of substance which require amendment. On the other hand, I think it is unwise to presume that on all occasions a Prayer moved by the Opposition is necessarily without some foundation. After all, no Government is infallible, let alone this Government, which is the best Government this country has ever had. I think we must be grateful to the hon. Baronet for having drawn attention to this order, which merits, and I am sure will receive, the close attention of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I speak with a certain degree of diffidence on this subject, as I happen to be interested in one of the industries affected by the order. I think there is some misapprehension about the order in the minds of hon. Members opposite. They declare categorically that there is muddle in the mind of my hon. Friend: but I must say I detected from their speeches a certain amount of muddle in their own minds. I hope to be able to clear up their intellectual difficulties as I go along.

This order is a simple one. It says that floor coverings in the form of tiles or strips not exceeding 450 square inches in area shall no longer be subject to Purchase Tax. Broadly speaking, this means that tiles of one-third of a square yard or less are exempt, whereas anything over is subject to Purchase Tax. I think it is very easy to understand how this order came into operation. In point of fact it has nothing at all to do with rubber floor covering, or lino, or composition floor covering, or any of the types of floor covering to which the hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred. It has to do with parquet flooring and wood block flooring. Parquet, which is hardwood, carried a 33⅓ per cent. Purchase Tax, whereas wood block flooring carried no Purchase Tax at all. It was found that in certain cases it was cheaper to lay a parquet floor with Purchase Tax on a wood block floor without it. As a result, representations were made to the appropriate Department and it was decided to exempt the parquet floor. During the course of the consultations which took place, it seems that the effect of the order on other types of floor covering was overlooked. I think that will be accepted by my hon. Friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because, as I shall explain in a moment, it is a very complicated matter. I shall explain what is an actual flooring and what is a floor covering. In point of fact, the wood block floor is not a floor covering but is an actual floor. That is where the complication arises. I think the hon. Baronet made a mistake in suggesting that not all floor covering materials pay Purchase Tax. That is not so. Wood block flooring was to carry Purchase Tax. It was because the object was to bring it into line with parquet flooring that this order has been produced.

Sir J. Mellor

I was using the expression "floor covering" and endeavoured to distinguish between that and flooring. I was pointing out that the order only referred to floor covering.

Mr. Lewis

As I have explained, the wood block floor or parquet floor is not only a floor in itself, it is a floor covering. [An HON. MEMBER: "It cannot be a floor and a covering."] One can lay a wood block floor on joists. One can have it put into a home. That is a form of covering; whereas, a wood block floor may be a floor installed with the house. I think that will be understood by hon. Members who want to give some attention to this matter. What the order did not take into account was the effect it would have on other types of floor covering, such as rubber flooring, linoleum, cork, and composition. What has happened, though not to any great extent at the moment, because there has not been time? What the hon. Baronet has pointed out is correct, namely, that firms are ordering sheet material and are cutting it into sizes with the object of evading Purchase Tax. Those who believed that there was a case for the reduction of Purchase Tax on floor covering materials, or even for their exemption from Purchase Tax, are, I am sure, in agreement that they do not want to see it possible for certain people by sharp practice to evade the tax where others have to pay it. That is, unfortunately, happening under the order. Sheet material is being bought and cut up, and people who have a certificate as wholesalers are able to evade Purchase Tax which in the normal way they would have to pay.

Mr. Erroll

Surely, they are not liable to tax when the material is cut up. They cannot be liable for something not taxed.

Mr. Lewis

Before one is inclined to condemn the Government for introducing the order one should appreciate, as I think it will be appreciated, by the time that I have finished, that there are complications in this matter. I would suggest to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury that the difficulty has arisen because in this order the Government have failed to make a distinction between classes of floor covering materials. What we have to do is to divorce wooden flooring of all types from the other types of flooring which I have enumerated. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to exempt tiles in the second category, he must define specifically what he means by a tile. In that connection, I think that the Chancellor should consider a tile as something formed in a mould, with or without power or hydraulic pressure. If he does that and says tiles in this connection must be made individually as tiles, and they are to be exempt from tax, he will not get into difficulties. But if he defines as tiles material cut from a sheet, he will face difficulties.

I think that this is a somewhat complicated matter, and whereas I am prepared to admit to the hon. Baronet who raised the matter that it can well be said that an error has occurred, I believe it ought also to be admitted that the error is a forgivable one. I say that the complications of this matter may lead anyone into difficulties but, if the Economic Secretary says he will re-examine the matter, taking into account all the suggestions which have been put forward by hon. Members tonight then, for my part at least, I shall be satisfied; and, if we are able to elicit such an undertaking from him, I hope the hon. Baronet will not force the matter to a Division.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Keeling (Twickenham)

I do hope that the Government will admit that they have made a mistake in this matter. There seems to me to be no doubt from the arguments which we have heard from my hon. Friend that this order is unfair to the linoleum manufacturers. Furthermore, the Government voted against their own Motion for the Adjournment and, if they had voted, as is the normal course, for their own Motion, then this Prayer could not have been moved and the discussion could not have ensued. I think, therefore, that the conclusion is irresistible; the Government voted against their own Motion for the Adjournment in order that they might make a statement and I hope that we shall not be disappointed.

10.42 p.m.

Captain John Crowder (Finchley)

I only want to ask the Economic Secretary if he will make clear to the ordinary layman what is at issue. We have heard arguments from hon. Members who appear to be very knowledgeable in this subject, and the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) said that floor covering is not the same thing as linoleum. What, I want to know, are "strips"; and does this order refer to felt and carpet? I ask that because a lot of people are putting down felt or pieces of carpet in a passage in a flat. Are they not subject to Purchase Tax because they are only small pieces? What exactly is "floor covering" and what are "strips"? Will the hon Gentleman, when he replies, make it quite clear, because the order refers to parquet and wood flooring or all forms of floor coverings already laid.

10.43 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay)

My hon. Friend, the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) made a practical suggestion to which we shall be very glad to give examination. We have already examined a similar proposal. But, first of all, I would explain, if I may, how this order arose and what is its main purpose. As the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said, it is to lower the cost of new housing and that, I think, is something with which hon. Members on all sides of the House agree. It is, in effect, that lowering of costs which is desired, whatever the other consequences will be. We believe that will be the main effect of the order; it is bound to be one of its effects.

As the hon. Baronet said, a distinction has always been drawn between flooring materials and floor coverings so far as Purchase Tax is concerned. Materials which constitute a floor are never subject to tax because they are parts of the house, but the floor covering materials are chargeable, just as wallpaper and other types of housing equipment are chargeable. The difficulty, I think, arises because of the misunderstanding as to what is regarded as floor covering for the purposes of Purchase Tax. Some materials which are not just laid on the floor, but are cemented or otherwise built in, and become part of the floor have been regarded as floor covering materials: for instance, materials which form the finish on a concrete or other solid floor. Those floor covering materials include hardwood strips, which are also known as parquetry, and various other forms of tiles, such as the composition tiles which the hon. Baronet mentioned.

The hon. Member will remember that in November last year the tax on most of these tiles and strips was raised to 33⅓ per cent. from the 16⅔ per cent. at which it had previously stood. That, of course, brought up the question whether it was right to go on taxing at this higher rate these materials used for housing.

That was the first ground for reconsidering this matter. The second, of course, was that the need to economise in softwood became particularly important on balance of payment grounds. It so happens that the tiles and strips I have just mentioned are particularly valuable for this purpose of saving softwood. It was definitely anomalous that hardwood substitutes for softwood floors should be taxed while the softwood flooring itself, in which we wanted to economise, should not be chargeable. It was mainly for those reasons—in the interest of cheaper housing and to economise in softwood—that it was decided to exempt tiles and strips from the tax and at same time to ensure, as far as possible, that those tiles and strips were used only in new houses and certain other buildings, such as new schools. The best definition which could be found for that purpose was the definition contained in the order, that is to say: Tiles or strips not exceeding 450 square inches in area,… We fully realised, of course, that a complaint of competition might be made from the linoleum industry and certain other industries and I am grateful for the hon. Member for putting that case tonight so that it can be considered. As I say, this was considered carefully, because the linoleum industry, by dint of the very large contribution which it is now making to the export trade, is assisting in the balance of payments problem and is for that reason a valuable national asset. Naturally we should not wish to hamper its activities. I fully agree that if it were shown that this order were causing serious injury to the exporting ability of the linoleum industry, or any other industry, that would constitute a case for reconsideration. But there are two reasons for supposing that a distinction can reasonably be drawn for tax purposes between the tiles and strips which we are exempting, on the one hand, and linoleum, on the other.

In the first place, the tiles and strips are not laid on a floor as linoleum normally is, but are cemented to it and become a part of it. In that respect they are more akin to stone tiles or wooden blocks. Secondly—and this is perhaps a point which neither the hon. Baronet nor the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) appreciated—because of the very fine export effort the linoleum industry is now making, and also incidentally because of the shortage of linseed oil, the amount of linoleum available for the home market for purposes outside housing is barely equal to the demand and the whole intention of this order is, of course, to concentrate the use of the newly exempted tiles and strips in the field of new houses and new schools.

If we are successful in this, as we have reason to believe we shall be, there should in practice not be competition, unfair or otherwise, between the two materials. So far as hardwood strips are concerned, for instance, the whole output is being canalised into new houses and new schools. On the other hand, if it were shown in practice that unfair competition was taking place on a material scale, I agree that the definition would need some reconsideration. The intention was thus to save softwood, to reduce the cost of new housing, and to avoid any unfair competition by canalising the different products to different uses. It is alleged by hon. Members opposite that that canalisation has not succeeded, and the hon. Baronet alleged that in addition linoleum and other materials are being extensively cut up into strips to avoid tax. I agree it is not evading tax, but if the allegation is true it would be intolerable, uneconomic and a waste of labour. Our information is that the alleged cutting into strips is only going on upon a very limited scale. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said there was ample evidence that it was going on upon a considerable scale. That is not our information and no evidence has been produced to show that it is.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

In view of what was said the other day by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) and other suggestions which have been made, have any inquiries been made since last Tuesday?

Mr. Jay

Certainly inquiries have been made. The most thorough inquiries that could be made in the time available were made, and our evidence is that this is only happening on a limited scale. If it were shown to be on a larger scale—and I say quite frankly we did not expect it—then it might be necessary to take some amending action. I think I should mention that the practice of cutting linoleum into strips has not simply occurred since this order was made. Indeed a letter from Linoleum Manufacturers' Association to the Treasury of 25th November makes it clear that this was happening, if I understood the letter aright, before the order was made. The fact that this has happened does not establish that it was due to the order.

Since the order was made we have had a number of helpful suggestions, including that of the hon. Member for Bolton, about getting over the difficulty that has arisen. We are carefully examining all of these, and we shall also take note of the arguments that have been put forward tonight. We are also in consultation with the manufacturing interests concerned. The hon. Baronet suggested that one solution might be to exempt linoleum and all other similar coverings from the tax. That would not necessarily get us out of the difficulty. It might then be argued that materials such as coir matting and carpets should also be exempted. I do not know whether he would be prepared they should be exempt, but if he would not, that particular argument of his would be considerably weakened.

Captain Crowder

They are exempted under this order if they are of the small size indicated. All floor Coverings are exempt if they are so small.

Mr. Jay

Yes, if they are of that particular size. What the hon. Baronet was proposing was that we should exempt all floor covering of any size. Nevertheless, I can give the House an assurance that we are examining all the suggestions made and all the information which comes to us, and if in the light of the facts as established it is shown that some fairer and more satisfactory arrangement could be made which would achieve the essential job of lowering the cost of housing and avoiding any unfair competition or discrimination we shall certainly not hesitate to adopt it. Indeed, we are extremely anxious to find the best and fairest solution. In the meantime the House will agree that the present order should stand, since whatever else it may do it materially lowers the price of materials which are being widely used in new work and in addition it economises the use of softwood. A saving in softwood means more new houses for a given expenditure of dollars, which is what we all want. If a better solution can be found—and we must take a little time to examine possible alternatives put forward—we shall be very glad to adopt it.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)

The Economic Secretary has made a very curious speech in defence of this order. He has explained very clearly—and I am grateful for his explanation—the reason that led to the making of this order. It was, if I understood him correctly, to lower the cost of materials actually used in the construction of floors—that is to provide that parquet cemented to floors should be free of Purchase Tax, and be put in the same position in relation to wood floors; in fact to remove from liability to Purchase Tax anything forming part of the actual floor. So far as the order goes, that intention, I am sure, meets with the warmest approval from both sides of the House.

But the order itself is something quite different. It makes no reference to anything forming part of a floor and no reference to flooring. All it refers to is floor covering. We had an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) explaining what was meant by tiles. I was sorry he did not say what was meant by strips. The Economic Secretary did not elucidate that. As I understand the order, as it now stands, it applies to all floor covering no matter of what material that covering may be made—carpets, matting, felt, or every kind of floor covering so long as it is not more than 450 square inches.

If the intention was to exempt material used for floors it really is a signal example of efficiency on the part of the Government that they should bring in an order exempting floor covering. I would ask the hon. Gentleman, as he has said he will examine all suggestions put forward, to examine a little further the limits of size. It is rather ludicrous to say that people who get a new council house will be able to buy strips of carpet not exceeding 450 square inches free of Purchase Tax provided they buy enough strips to carpet rooms. The right limit, if there is to be exemption for carpets, would be a limit which would enable them to buy sufficient to carpet the ordinary room in a council house. I put forward that suggestion on the assumption that when the order comes back to us or is replaced, it will not be limited to material used in the construction of floors but will also include floor covering.

The Economic Secretary has said he will examine all proposals. If we do not divide against this order now, it means we shall not have an opportunity to do so in the future. However, having regard to the attitude adopted by the hon. Gentleman, we shall accept his assurance and expect him at some time to make a statement to the House, on an early occasion after the House resumes, telling us what it is he proposes to do. Having regard to the fact that this is the only time we can pray against the order I think that is the least we can do. I hope he will then be able to announce that he will revoke an order which creates such anomalies and which really does not attain the purpose for which it is intended.

Sir J. Mellor

My hon. Friends and I are naturally reluctant to vote against any reduction or abolition of Purchase Tax, and having regard to that, and the assurance from the Economic Secretary that the matter will be re-examined, and in the expectation that he will be able to make a statement when the House resumes in January as to the result of that examination, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.