HC Deb 28 April 1936 vol 311 cc724-6
46. Lieut. - Colonel Sir CHARLES MacANDREW

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to introduce legislation to enable parents to annul irrevocable trusts already made on behalf of their children, so that legally appointed trustees shall be allowed to return to parents trust funds originally put into trust by the parents on behalf of their children and on which, under the Budget proposals, the parents, instead of the children, will be called upon to pay Income Tax and Surtax?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain)

I may perhaps refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my remarks in the course of the Debate last night, and ask him to await the introduction of the Finance Bill containing the necessary provisions for giving effect to my proposal.


Would not the effect of such a fundamental change be greatly to increase direct taxation and to cause hardships to many persons who in the past have done something irrevocable but nothing dishonourable or illegal, or in any way hidden or concealed from the Revenue authorities?

47. Mr. TINKER

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the figures of direct and indirect taxation for 1925 and 1935 and what they will be on the present Budget?


With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that, as I said last night, any comparison between the figures before and after the alteration in the fiscal system of the country would be entirely misleading.

Following are the figures:

Direct. Indirect.
Per cent. Per cent.
1925 66.02 33.98
1935 59.57 40.43
1936 60.04 39.96
(Budget Estimates)
49. Mr. LEACH

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has satisfied himself before making the order to increase the duties on sodium bichromate and potassium bichromate, that the tanning, textile finishing, and colour making industries will not be prejudicially affected?


The committee's report indicates that attention has been given to the point to which the hon. Member refers, and that they are satisfied that the interests of consumers will not be prejudiced.


Has the Chancellor not realised that in the Command Paper describing this matter the commissioners make no reference to having interviewed any consumer and that the only promise that prices will be reasonable has been made by the manufacturers and this has apparently satisfied the Commissioners? Is that good enough?


I think it is.

Forward to