THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Purchase Tax. Exemptions and reductions of rates.)

HC Deb 17 July 1946 vol 425 cc1231-75

3.50 p.m.

Mr. John Lewis (Bolton)

I beg to move, in page 57, line 22, at the end, to insert: Hand wringers, hand mangles and hand washing machines. Those of us who have put down this Amendment realise that there have been opportunities to raise the matter previ- ously, but I think it was generally anticipated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of his own volition;, would have removed the Purchase Tax on these essential items of domestic laundry equipment. Indeed, I know that representations were made in this respect even before the last Budget. What I want to stress is that we are not asking that the Purchase Tax should be removed from the electric washing machine of an expensive type which only goes into a certain type of household. What we are asking the Chancellor to do is to remove the tax from any hand equipment which is urgently required by the housewife to ease the burdens she has to bear from day to day. The heavy burden which the housewife has to bear today more than at any other time because of such things as lack of coupons, due to causes over which the Government have had no previous control, has made it impossible for her to have sufficient clothes in order to have some at the laundry and at the same time some in the home. Therefore, washing in the home has become a necessity.

In these circumstances it is essential that laundry equipment be made readily available. This would help immeasurably to ease the housewife's burdens. She has to stand in queues of all sorts during the day; she has in addition many other things to do and often children to look after. There is no doubt that at the end of the day she is in a very fatigued condition. I suggest that the Chancellor should give consideration to what after all is a penalty on her, because Purchase Tax on this essential household equipment is some form of penalty. The Government are appealing to women to return to industry or to remain in industry if they are already in it. I think it would be a much stronger appeal if we were to show that we have due regard to some of their difficulties when they get home in the evening.

The birthrate, we are pleased to say, is going up. I think that no one can deny that in present conditions washing cannot be avoided it there is a baby in the home. I am sure the Chancellor will appreciate this. No doubt in the past he himself was brought into active consultation by his wife to assist in what I think is called "doing the smalls." It must not be said of him that he is responsible for adding to the heavy cost of motherhood at the present time. Even the most courageous Chancellor, I suggest, would not dare to put the Purchase Tax on perambulators That has not been done, but the Chancellor has taken the Purchase Tax off refrigerators and electric irons, and, so far as I am aware, it is quite impossible to iron clothes unless they have already been wrung out by some means or another. I suggest that it would be a measure of justice to the harassed housewife if the Chancellor made it possible for her to acquire this essential laundry equipment without being called upon to pay Purchase Tax which, in my view, might well have been removed last year.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)

I beg to second the Amendment.

This is a most estimable proposal. In my own part of the country, laundrying is becoming impossible because of the difficulties of travel. A housewife cannot induce the laundries to collect the clothes and return them when they have been washed, as used to be done in the old days. The result is that nearly every home irrespective of its description has to do its own laundry. I hope that the Chancellor will listen to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) and accept the Amendment. By doing so he will bring a very great blessing and a great assistance to housewives, particularly in the rural areas.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

(Mr. Dalton): I am sympathetic to this proposal as I am to many other cases which have been put forward. If I had more revenue, if there were fewer essential objects on which I have to spend money, if it cost less to keep the cost of living within a certain level, and if a number of other factors were more favourable to the revenue, then I should not hesitate to accept the Amendment. But as things are, I regret that I cannot accept it shall put it down on the list of suggestions made from different parts of the House for due consideration next time. Beyond that I cannot go. I do not chide my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) at all, but I do make the point that he is a little late in the day in making this proposal. We are on the last stage before the Third Reading of the Bill, and as my hon. Friend knows, proceedings on Finance Bills are protracted, and stage follows stage in which there is a certain modicum of argument and brief debates on various topics. Several other suggestions were made on another stage of this Bill, and I undertook to consider them. I have selected some of them, and in a few moments I hope to move an Amendment to remove the Purchase Tax on several articles. The articles dealt with in this Amendment was not in the list, and this suggestion was not made by any Member in any part of the House. I do not say that if it had been made I could have included it, but if it had been ma de at an earlier stage, it stood a better chance of being taken into the balance with various other suggestions that were made. If I made this concession it would cost the Treasury another £250,000 in a full year. [Interruption.] I said, it would cost the Treasury another £250,000.

Mr. Oliver Stanley (Bristol, West)

I would not like the right hon. Gentleman to think that the interruption made sotto vocewas intended as an abuse of the Treasury. We were recalling that on Monday the Board of Trade stated that it was impossible to tell what the abolition of Purchase Tax on utility furniture would cost, and I ventured to suggest then that the Treasury would be prepared to give us an idea.

Mr. Dalton

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Treasury will always be prepared to chance its arm.

Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)

That is about the last thing which the Treasury will do.

Mr. Dalton

The fact remains that this would cost £250,000 in a full year, which I cannot afford, in addition to the concessions already made. I will promise, however, to regard it kindly and sympathetically with a great number of other topics next year. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment, in view of the sympathetic response which I have given to it.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake (Leeds, North)

Before the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Lewis) accepts the invitation of the Chancellor, I hope he will listen to a few words of commendation of his Amendment from this side of the House. We hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the courage of his convictions and press this Amendment to a Division. The Chancellor says that he would accept the Amendment if he had more revenue, and the Amendment itself, of course, would be more valuable, and even more costly, if we had more clothes and more soap. I commend the Amendment to the House on rather different grounds from those put forward by the mover. The articles named in it will be very badly needed in the next year or two, both by Members of His Majesty's Government and their supporters. Look what they are—hand washing machines, hand mangles and hand wringers. Well, Members on the Treasury Bench, like Pilate, are continually washing their hands of responsibility, and surely, the mention of hand wringers must recall to every Member of the House the words of a great Englishman: They may ring their bells now; before long they will be wringing their hands.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Holderness)

I find myself in agreement with the observations made by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Lewis) in commending this Amendment to us on the ground of the easement it would give to housewives. I am quite sure that that is a very good reason. The housewives of Bolton, who are crying for bread, are being offered hand wringers and hand washing machines by their Member. He is doing what he can to restore the position; at least, he has given vocal expression to a pious hope. Whether he will carry that hope into the Division Lobby remains to be seen, and no doubt the housewives of Bolton will watch him too. While the Chancellor is on sound ground in reminding us that there was an earlier opportunity for discussion of reliefs of Purchase Tax, surely it is not too late to consider what, after all, is an excellent suggestion and one which would help very much in the home. The time during which clothes are now retained in laundries before delivery— usually three or four weeks—has thrown an additional burden upon housewives who have to do laundry work at home. That position is due to labour shortage in laundries, to lack of petrol for delivery vans, and so on, and it is certainly more acute than I remember at any time during hostilities. I think that is a good reason why the right hon. Gentleman should consider this matter, and I do not think it is too late to consider it. As we look through the classes of goods which we discussed in Committee, and in respect of which concessions were made, I think one or two should appear lower in the list of priorities than the articles named in this Amendment. For instance, I regard a hand washing machine in my home—I do not know what would be the view of the right hon. Gentleman on this—as of greater value than a wig. I think this Amendment is excellent, and I shall have pleasure in supporting it if the hon. Member for Bolton tests the feeling of the House through the machinery of a Division.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

I cannot join with the Chancellor in chiding the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Lewis) for bringing forward this Amendment at this stage. I regard this Amendment as the best bit of work which has been done on the other side of the House during all our lengthy Debates on this Bill. As there are no lady Members present, I wish to say a few words on behalf of the many women who voted for me in my division, and also for housewives generally. The point was put very well by the hon. Member, and was admitted by the Chancellor, that housewives are at present faced with great difficulties in running their homes. These machines are essential for two or three reasons. One is that a great many were destroyed by bombs during the war, and there has been little chance of replacement. It is very hard on those whose homes suffered damage, that they should have to pay tax on any replacement which they make now. Further, there are many newly married people, and others coming back from the Forces, who want these machines in their home. All would be glad if the Chancellor would give them a little relief. They would be especially pleased in my part of the country, where we work harder and more industriously than they do in the North of England.

How important this Amendment was, I did not fully realise until the Chancellor said bow much the concession would cost. Some of us ought to have put this matter forward at an earlier stage, but things were hastily conducted, and if there is any fault on my part in failing to raise this point earlier, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. At any rate, I desire to make up for that, by saying that I feel strongly on this matter now, and that I hope we shall divide on the Amendment. Whether the hon. Member for Bolton will have the courage to go into the Division Lobby on his own behalf, or whether he will think better of it, having been persuaded by the sweet notes of the Chancellor, I cannot tell. I hope, however, that the hon. Member will not feebly withdraw his Amendment. I hope the hon. Member will not lay himself open to being chided, not only by the Chancellor, but by his constituents for having put forward a good idea and then run away from it. I hope he will get support from every part of the House, for an Amendment which is so good that I believe, with a little bit more persuasion, the Chancellor would give way on it.

Mr. J. Lewisrose——

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is not entitled to speak again.

Mr. Lewis

I was about to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member cannot withdraw it if any other Member rises to speak.

Mr. Jack Jones (Bolton)

I regret that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor cannot see his way to accept this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite) spoke about the people of Bolton crying for bread. I have some knowledge of that constituency, and I remember when the people literally did cry for bread, and cried in vain. This Debate is an illustration of how the Opposition always take an opportunity to make political kudos even out of washing machines and hand mangles. I see no virtue in hand mangles. I want the housewives of Bolton and Britain to be given an opportunity of having mechanically propelled machines, which will give some easement of their burden, at the earliest possible moment and at the least possible price.

Mr. Jennings (Sheffield, Hallam)

I support the Amendment. This is not a political matter. The hon. Gentleman Me senior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) mentioned bread. I have not referred to bread, and I have no intention of doing so. This matter concerns housewives in all constituencies, and I think that the junior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) has done a very great service to housewives by moving the Amendment. I would not like to lose even this last-ditch opportunity of supporting something which would be of benefit to the electors in my constituency. I hope that, in spite of the Chancellor's argument about its being too late in the day to consider this Amendment, the hon. Member will not withdraw it, but will divide the House on it. This is a matter of great importance to housewives. I urge the hon. Member to stick to his guns and not to withdraw the Amendment in a sheepish sort of way.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)

The hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) did his best to engender a good deal of heat into the Debate in the few words which he spoke. The fact that he spoke with such heat proves that he knows full well how failure by Members of his own party to press this Amendment will be received, not merely in Bolton, but in all Lancashire constituencies and throughout the country. I feel certain that, in his heart of hearts, the hon. Member knows that this is a very vital Amendment which should certainly have been accepted by the Chancellor and which, as it has been turned down by the Chancellor, should be pressed to a Division by the hon. Member and his friends. If he does not do so, I understand that my hon. Friends on this side intend to divide the House, and it will give me pleasure to go into the Division Lobby in support of the Amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton and his friends will have the courage to go into the Division Lobby in support of an Amendment which is vital to the housewives of the country.

I rose to speak because I felt that a word should be said by a Scottish Member. This question of mangles and washing machines affects not only Lancashire, and England, but the housewives of Scotland. I see that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is present, and I hope he will speak in support of this Amendment. I speak, of course, as the representative of a rural constituency, and I wish to support everything that was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) about the extreme difficulty which housewives in rural areas are experiencing in regard to laundries at the present time. That difficulty is caused by defective transport arrangements, and there is no sign of getting anything better under this so-called progressive Socialist Government. Transport difficulties have made it impossible for housewives through the long weary years, to get laundry back in quick time. If the Chancellor could have seen his way to accept the Amendment, he would have gone a long way to remove one little grievance of the housewives, and he would have strengthened his own position and the ever-weakening position of the Government at this critical time. There can be no question that housewives are suffering very great hardships, and they will have to suffer far greater hardships in a few days' time. Why cannot the Chancellor even now say that, if he cannot accept the whole of the Amendment, at all events he is in agreement with the spirit of it, and that when the next Finance Bill is introduced— [HON. MEMBERS: "He said that."] I am delighted to hear it. I should prefer it to be done now. As the Chancellor has not accepted the Amendment, it will give me great pleasure to support it in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Beechman (St. Ives)

As a bachelor, I was greatly moved by the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) on the matter of newly-married couples and people about to be married. As he spoke, I thought particularly of the hard work done in Cornwall by those who have married tin miners, fishermen and men who work in the china clay pits. These people have to work extremely hard in regard to changes of clothes, and this Amendment would be of the greatest assistance to them. I cannot see how the House, once this matter has been brought to its notice, can refuse to accord overwhelming support to the Amendment.

Sir Arnold Gridley (Stockport)

I wish to say a word or two, more in sorrow than in anger, about the attitude of the Chancellor. I tried to get the right hon. Gentleman to abolish the tax on electrical washing machines, and now that he does not propose to abolish it on hand washing machines, what is the poor housewife to do if she can get neither? I suffer from the fact that my laundry collects and returns only once every five weeks. I should be very glad to follow the example of a Member of another place and do the weekly washing and mangling myself if only I could buy a hand machine, or preferably an electric machine, for use in my own household. Speaking as the representative of a constituency which is partly in Lancashire—the county in which is situated the constituency of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment— and partly in Cheshire, I feel that I am entitled to speak on behalf of both Lancashire and Cheshire women who are, I know, suffering very serious disadvantages because of the difficulty they have in obtaining these articles which are so necessary, particularly in the smaller households. They cannot afford to pay the very stiff prices which those of us who are able to send goods to the laundry are having to pay today. They are suffering severe hardship, first, owing to the difficulty of obtaining these machines at all, and second, when they do, because if they do get the machines they have to pay the higher price which results from Purchase Tax. The Chancellor has, apparently, hardened his heart both against the electrical machines and against those which involve more severe labour—the hand operated machines—but I hope he will follow the example of one of his colleagues, and apply second thoughts in this case and make the decision asked for by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment.

Mr. Stanley

I should certainly not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for the hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether he is the senior or junior Member for Bolton, but let us at any rate call him "the other Member for Bolton." [HON. MEMBERS: "The senior Member."] Very well, the senior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones). The hon. Gentleman came to the assistance of his colleague not with any argument addressed to this Amendment whatsoever, but simply with a gibe thrown out at hon. Members on this side that the party behind me were, as usual, ready to take any opportunity of gaining political kudos. What does the

hon. Gentleman call this Amendment but an attempt to gain political kudos?

Mr. J. Lewisrose——

Mr. Stanley

I intend to finish first. If the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment believes in it and is prepared to back up his opinion in the Lobby, when we come to a Division, I shall be perfectly prepared to concede that he really means what he says. But if now that he has moved the Amendment and the Chancellor has given a perfunctory reply, the hon. Member withdraws it, then I shall say that that falls under exactly the same charge—an attempt to gain political kudos.

Mr. J. Lewis

Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down I would ask him to concede that the remarks of my hon. Friend were directed to previous remarks by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite), who suggested that the women in our constituency were crying out for bread, which is entirely untrue.

Mr. Stanley

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will prove in the Division Lobby whether it is true that they are crying out for hand wringers and band mangles.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 227.

Division No. 257.]	AYES.	[4.25 p.m.
Aitken, Hon. Max	Drewe, C.	Langford-Holt, J.
Amory, D. Heathcoat	Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Astor, Hon. M.	Duthie, W. S.	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Barlow, Sir J.	Eden, Rt. Hon. A.	Linstead, H. N.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.	Fletcher W. (Bury)	Lipson, D. L.
Bennett, Sir P.	Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Birch, Nigel	Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.	Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)	Gammans, L. D.	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Boothby, R.	George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Bossom, A. C	Glyn, Sir R.	Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Bower, N.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.	Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Gridley, Sir A.	MacLeod, Capt. J.
Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J, G.	Grimston, R. V.	Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.	Harris, H. Wilson	Marples, A. E.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V	Marsden, Capt. A.
Butcher, H. W.	Head, Brig. A. H.	Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Carson, E.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Mellor, Sir J.
Challen, C.	Hogg, Hon. Q.	Molson, A. H. E.
Channon, H.	Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)	Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Cole, T. L.	Howard, Hon. A.	Mullan, Lieut. C. H.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)	Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.	Nutting, Anthony
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C	Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Crowder, Capt. John E.	Jeffreys, General Sir G.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Davidson, Viscountess	Jennings, R.	Pickthorn, K.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)	Keeling, E. H	Pitman, I. J.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Lambert, Hon. G-	Ponsonby, Cc' C. E.
Drayson, Capt. G. B.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
Ramsay, Maj. S.	Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)	Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Rayner, Brig. R.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)	White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Raid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)	Studholme, H. G.	Williams, C. (Torquay)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)	Sutcliffe, H.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland	Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Scott, Lord W.	Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)	York, C.
Smithers, Sir W.	Teeling, William	Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Snadden, W. M.	Vane, W. M. F.
Spearman, A. C. M.	Wadsworth, G.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Spance, H. R.	Wakefield, Sir W. W,	Lieut.-Col. Dower and
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.	Walker-Smith, D.	Mr. Beechman.
Stewart, J Henderson (Fife, E.)	Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
NOES.
Adams, Richard (Balham)	Foster, W. (Wigan)	Medland, H. M
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Mitchison, Maj. G. R
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)	Gallacher, W.	Monslow, W.
Attewell, H. C.	Ganley, Mrs. C. S	Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Awbery, S. S.	Gibbins, J.	Morley, R.
Ayles, W. H.	Gibson, C. W	Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B	Gilzean, A.	Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Bacon, Miss A.	Glanville, J. E. (Consett)	Mort, D. L.
Baird, Capt. J	Gooch, E. G.	Murray, J. D.
Balfour, A.	Goodrich, H. E.	Nally, W.
Barstow, P. G.	Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)	Naylor, T. E.
Barton, C.	Grenfell, D. R.	Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Battley, J. R.	Grierson, E.	Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)
Bechervaise, A. E.	Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)	Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Bellenger, F. J.	Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)	Noel-Buxton, Lady
Benson, G.	Gruffydd, Prof. W. J	Oldfield, W. H.
Blyton, W. R.	Gunter, Capt. R. J	Orbach, M.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)	Guy, W. H.	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)	Hale, Leslie	Parkin, B. T.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Hall, W G. (Colne Valley)	Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Brook, D. (Halifax)	Hannan, W. (Maryhill)	Paton, J. (Norwich)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)	Hardy, E. A.	Peart, Capt. T. F.
Brown, George (Belper)	Harrison, J.	Perrins, W
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Burden, T. W	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Popplewell, E.
Burke, W. A.	Herbison, Miss M.	Porter, E. (Warrington)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)	Hobson, C. R.	Porter, G (Leeds)
Callaghan, James	Holman, P.	Proctor, W. T.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)	Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Chamberlain, R. A,	Horabin, T. L.	Randall, H. E.
Champion. A. J	House, G.	Ranger, J.
Chater, D.	Hoy, J.	Rees-Williams, D. R
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.	Hubbard, T.	Reeves, J.
Clitherow, Dr. R.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)	Reid, T. (Swindon)
Cluse, W. S.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Cobb, F. A.	Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)	Robens, A.
Cocks, F. S.	Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)	Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Coldrick, W.	Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)	Sargood, R.
Collindridge, F.	Jeger, G. (Winchester)	Scollan, T.
Collins, V. J.	Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S E.)	Scott-Elliot, W.
Colman, Miss G M.	John, W.	Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Cook, T. F.	Keenan, W.	Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.	Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E	Shurmer, P.
Corlett, Dr. J.	Kinley, J.	Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Cove, W. G.	Kirby, B. V.	Simmons, C. J.
Crossman, R. H. S	Kirkwood, D.	Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Daggar, G.	Lee, F. (Hulme)	Skinnard, F. W.
Daines, P.	Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)	Smith, T. (Normanton)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Leslie, J. R.	Snow, Capt. J. W.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)	Lever, N. H.	Solley, L. J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M	Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)	Logan, D. G	Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	McAdam, W.	Sparks, J. A.
Davies, S, O. (Merthyr)	McAllister, G.	Stamford, W.
Deer, G.	McEntee, V. La T.	Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Diamond, J.	McGhee, H. G.	Stross, Dr. B.
Dobbie, W.	Mack, J. D.	Stubbs, A. E.
Dodds, N. N.	McKay, J. (Wallsend)	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Dumpleton, C. W.	McKinlay, A. S.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Durbin, E. F. M.	Maclean, N. (Govan)	Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Dye, S.	McLeavy, F.	Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Edelman, M.	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Mainwaring, W. H.	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Edwards, John (Blackburn)	Mann, Mrs. J.	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)	Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)	Thurtle, E.
Ewart, R	Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)	Tiffany, S.
Fairhurst F.	Marquand, H. A.	Titterington, M. F.
Farthing, W. J.	Martin, J. H.	Vernon, Maj. W. F
Foot, M. M.	Mathers, G.	Walker, G H.
Forman, J. C.	Mayhew, C. P.	Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Warbey, W. N.	Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)	Wilson, J. H.
Watson, W. M.	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)	Wise, Major F. J.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)	Williams, D. J. (Neath)	Woods, G. S.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)	Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)	Yales, V. F.
Wigg, Colonel G. E.	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Wilkes, L.	Willis, E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Wilkins, W. A.	Wills, Mrs. E. A.	Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bing.

Question put, and agreed to.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalton

I beg to move, in page 58, line 5, at the end, to insert:

"CLASSES OF GOODS BECOMING EXEMPT ON 22ND JULY, 1946

Wigs.

Glass chimneys and similar primary glasses, being chimneys and glasses designed for oil or candle lamps.

Fireguards.

Smoothing irons and pressing irons, being irons of a kind used for domestic purposes. Acetylene cap lamps and acetylene hand lamps.

Electric dry batteries of not more than six volts.

Clasp knives (but not including razors or goldsmiths' and silversmiths' wares).

Vermin traps.

Projectors for slides (including projectors for filmstrips but not including epidiascopes nor cinematograph projectors).

Lenses, and other parts of, and accessories to, projectors for slides.

Vessels primarily designed for propulsion otherwise than by the occupants themselves and parts of, and accessories to, such vessels.

Cinematograph films, film strips and lantern slides, being films, film-strips and slides containing pictures for exhibition by means of a projector.

Perhaps we have now reached relatively uncontroversial ground, since I am about to propose a series of concessions, some by way of total remission of tax and some by way of abatement of tax, most of which were asked for by hon. Members in the Committee stage. Perhaps it would be convenient if I say a word on each one of them.

It was my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), whose head is well covered as yet, who took an interest in wigs, or as he politely called them, transformations. I have thought it reasonable to meet his request. The cost will be so small that we are not putting a ticket on it. The cost is what is technically called negligible. If it were not so, I should not have given the concession. Frankly, I have got along without the aid of these objects which it is now proposed to free from tax. I do not regard them as in the highest order of priority, but the cost will be practically nothing. I am advised that a number of people, such as those who have suffered from shock and illness and various other maladies, wear wigs, and that it would not be right to resist my hon. Friend's plea. Men can struggle along without them but there are some ladies to whom they are necessary. This is the human aspect of the matter. I am informed that there are many cases of ladies who, by reason of illness, have to wear things of this sort and for those reasons, we must give the matter sympathetic treatment.

From wigs I pass to glass chimneys adjusted to oil lamps or candle lamps. This concession will cost £50,000 a year, not a very large sum. This concession is specially designed for the benefit of people who dwell in the country where neither gas nor electricity is obtainable. I gave an undertaking in regard to oil lamp chimneys. I here extend it to candle lamps because it is not practicable, nor should I wish, to draw a distinction between the two. All similar lamp glasses will be exempted.

I come to fireguards. Exemption in this case will cost £50,000 this year, and £100,000 in a full year. The case was reasonably argued in favour of this concession by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher), who said that fireguards for the protection of children would he a reasonable object of Purchase Tax concession. Therefore, I propose this remission to the Committee.

Then we come to electric irons, and smoothing and pressing irons. I said that I would give the concession as regards electric irons. I have been anxious not to seem to discriminate in favour of one sort of iron, rather than another. Therefore, the concession will cover not only electric irons, but gas and charcoal irons, and also the old-fashioned flat iron, the kind of iron which is operated by means of unaided muscle by the lady or gentleman in question, and not by electrical or other aid. They are all included and they are all exempted. The estimated cost of that exemption in a full year will be £500,000, which is getting more serious for the Revenue; but we will face it.

Next, I come to acetylene cap lamps and hand lamps. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Workington (Captain Peart), who is now having a cup of tea, and the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) both took an interest in this matter. I was asked to exempt miners' lamps as such, but that is neither necessary nor, in principle, defensible. I wish to exempt lamps used by miners and any lamps of similar kind used by other workers in industry. The words proposed will exempt all non-safety lamps most commonly used by miners. Safety lamps have always been exempted since the inception of the Purchase Tax. The cost here is also negligible.

I come to electric dry batteries. This concession was originally proposed in the interests of the deaf. I have looked at it to see how we can define it so as to limit it to deaf aids. That is not possible. It cannot be done in that way. Therefore, I have deliberately gone further and incurred some further loss of revenue by exempting batteries used in deaf aids. They may also be used in other ways, but that fact we must take in our stride and accept. The cost of this concession, in the form in which I have put it down, will be £750,000. That is substantial. I ask the Committee to note that this concession will cost a good deal of money, but I hope the concession will be particularly appreciated by deaf people.

The next item is clasp knives such as are carried by sailors in the course of their work. The hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison) proposed it, but we have had to extend it a little in order to make it workable. The hon. and gallant Member asked for the concession in respect of jack knives, but that is not a category which we can easily define and administer. Therefore, we have extended it to clasp knives. The concession will cost £200,000 in a full year.

I come to vermin traps. These were thought to be important by some hon. Members, and again the figure involved is negligible—nothing of which the Treasury need take account. In view of the ardour with which the Amendment on this subject was pressed, I have included vermin traps, and we may hope that they will be useful in saving the food supply for human beings and in various other ways.

Then we come to projectors for slides, including projectors for film-strips. The concession will cost £25,000 this year, and a good deal more next year. The exemption relates to articles mainly used for educational purposes, and covers all of what are called still projectors. With regard to other types of projectors—sub-standard cinematograph films and so on— the tax has already been reduced from too per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. We have dealt pretty well with this section of educational activities. The concession on lenses of magic lanterns and so on—we need much magic in our lives—is consequential on the remission on stills.

We had a conversation about sailing vessels in Committee. I am proposing to exempt sailing vessels. I said in the course of the Debate that I recognised that there was a special case for the exemption of sailing vessels in view of the national value attaching to seafaring people who knew their way about in boats in all conditions of weather. Parts of and accessories to such vessels are also included. It is a little difficult to be sure of the cost. Usually the Treasury is willing to offer a figure, but here we shall bracket it between £50,000 and £100,000 a year. It is difficult to estimate it more closely.

I was pressed to take the tax off wallpaper altogether, and the case was well put from both sides of the House. I agreed to cut it down by half this year, and we may be able to go the rest of the distance another time. It is proposed here to cut the tax down from 33⅓ per cent. to 16⅔ per cent. The cost will be half a million pounds a year, but it will be more as the years go on, as more paper is produced and as more houses are being papered. That is not the end of the concessions I am making, but includes those dealt with in this particular Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wallpaper?"] I beg pardon. Wallpaper is the subject of a separate Amendment, but I thought it would be convenient to speak of it now. Perhaps I might add that I have also made a concession on silk goods. There is another Amendment to which I shall be able to make a favourable reply.

When we entered on the Committee stage, I said I had been looking into the general position and that it would be possible to make further allowances to the extent of £2 million in a full year. That is following upon the concessions in the field of Purchase Tax alone—I am not now talking of other concessions—of £15¼ million in a full year in my original Budget proposals. That does not include Entertainments Duty and other remissions. I then looked at the position in the light of the Committee discussions, and entered upon these discussions with a figure of £2 million in my mind. As far as we have gone, including wallpaper and the silk goods, I have stretched that a good deal, and I have now got a scheme of remissions amounting in a full year to an additional £3,600,000. That is to say, the total remissions on Purchase Tax this year are just over £18 million, which is pretty good, having regard to the general tightness of the financial position. I hope it will be generally thought in the House, that this is a reasonable effort to meet the many claims put forward.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

I welcome the Amendment which the Chancellor has moved. If I might have his ear, I should like to thank him—[Interruption.]. I said the right hon. Gentleman's ear, not his ears——

Mr. Dalton

I can hear the right hon. Gentleman perfectly.

Mr. Stanley

The speculation on this side was that somebody had given the Chancellor of the Exchequer a thick ear. All my hon. Friends join in thanking the Chancellor for the way in which he has tried to meet the wishes expressed in Committee and now in the House on this subject of Purchase Tax. It would, of course, have been possible for him to put down a number of Amendments and let us take them or leave them, but he has given hon. Members a chance of pressing the claims in which they are particularly interested. Of the actual classes of goods included in the Amendment which he has moved, I want to make special reference to one only. Despite the difficulties, and the increased expenditure, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to meet the case of the deaf. That is a case which has worried people for some time, and we are very grateful that he has been prepared to meet it.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I say that I am not satisfied—and I doubt whether he is satisfied either—that, if we are now to expect for several years large reductions in the Purchase Tax, we have yet found the right way of going about it. Perhaps between now and the next Budget he will see whether there could not be some machinery which might start outside Parliament, but would come to Parliament in the end, and which would allow these claims to be sifted. I take as an example something which the right hon. Gentleman said to the junior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) a few minutes ago. I do not know whether it was in jest or serious, but what he said with regard to the Amendment dealing with hand wringers, hand mangles and hand washing machines was that it was too late, as we had already discussed all these on the Committee stage, that he had promised certain concessions on the Committee stage and that it was now quite impossible to add to them. Who could say that if the Amendment about hand wringers had been thought of a little earlier by the hon. Member for Bolton, and had been pressed by him with a little more vigour on the Committee stage, it might not have been found to take precedence in its importance over some of the other concessions? It might have come before wigs, vermin traps and even clasp knives. It is wrong therefore that it should depend merely upon whether some hon. Member or another thinks of a particularly desirable exclusion in time to have it discussed in Committee.

There was of course no other course open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the arrangement which we came to on the Committee stage was the best we could have come to in the circumstances, but I am not satisfied that it will always be the best, if we are to have the Purchase Tax as a permanent feature in our fiscal policy, but one which is liable, probably in the next few years, to be subject to considerable reductions. In those circumstances, it might be better to have some advisory committee to whom, in the first place, all these requests could go. This committee could screen the requests, and after that, with some report from the committee in their hands, hon. Members could exercise the right, which they must have, of moving Amendments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider between now and the next Finance Bill whether some alternative system could not be devised.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

It would be entirely out of Order at this stage of the Finance Bill, to discuss the merits of the Purchase Tax as a whole, but I think that the comments made both by my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman, illustrate one aspect of the Purchase Tax in a very convenient way, and it might not be out of Order to draw attention to it. What is it that we are doing by these Amendments? We are picking out a number of hard cases and saying in effect, "In this instance the case is so hard, that the general principle of the Purchase Tax ought to give way to it; we ought not to press this matter on this class of person because the hardship involved is greater than we would like to inflict." But there are many other cases in which the hardship can be shown to be greater or to be not very much less, and then it becomes a kind of lottery as to who thinks of what first, and in what kind of atmosphere the particular Amendments happen to be moved—

Mr. Stanleyindicated assent.

Mr. Silverman

—whether the House is charged by controversial excitement or is in, shall we say, a consultative or cooperative mood. It seems wrong that these questions should be decided in this way. I do not know whether the whole basis or background of the Purchase Tax could be reviewed so as to make a series of categories of hardships, or whether we might not, some day soon, abandon a tax which involves so much hardship and is so very unscientific, as machinery for raising revenue and meeting financial commitments. I do not know whether we could have a series of categories of hardships or not. I suppose there would be nothing very much to be said against a high Purchase Tax on luxury articles in times of financial and industrial shortage and stringency, but I think that this discussion illustrates how bad a tax a general Purchase Tax on all commodities can be.

Mr. Keeling (Twickenham)

I would like to ask the Chancellor to elucidate one point. In talking about domestic irons, the Chancellor said that he intended to exempt both irons propelled by human muscle, and irons propelled electrically. There is a large class of electric irons propelled by muscle, and I want to ask whether it is intended to, exempt not only electric irons which are propelled electric- ally, like trolley buses—which the Chancellor appears to think is the normal practice with an electric iron—but also electric irons propelled by human muscle, which I think is the normal practice.

Mr. Dalton

They are exempt anyhow.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, Southern)

There is a great deal in what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said. To my mind, however, he emphasised a little too much the ground of hardship. If he had been here for the earlier Debate, he would have heard suggestions for the exemption of hand wringers, hand mangles, and washing machines, advanced on the ground of hardship and sternly resisted by the Chancellor on the ground of lack of finance I think there is a case for the review of this system of remission of Purchase Tax on a systematic and scientific basis, and I hope the Chancellor will look into it next year. The right hon. Gentleman is very keen on streamlined legislation, and in this Amendment there is every evidence of streamlining. These are classes of goods which become exempt on 22nd July. Today is 17th July, and I would ask the Chancellor to explain exactly what machinery makes these exemptions effective. They are meant to be effective, are they not, to the extent that if a sailor walks into a shop in Portsmouth and buys a clasp knife a week from today he gets it for 3s. 1d. instead of 3s. 11d., or whatever the relative prices are. What happens from now onward? If the Finance Bill receives its Third Reading on Friday, and there is some formality in the other place, does the Treasury issue a series of minutes, or does the Board of Trade operate by Order? In the latter case, is the Order laid upon the Table? What exactly happens within this very short space of time between today and 22nd July, when these tax remissions are meant to be effective?

Lord Willoughby de Eresby (Rutland and Stamford)

As the Member who originally put down an Amendment in Committee to exempt batteries used in deaf aids, I would not like this occasion to pass without thanking the Chancellor for the concession he has given. The price of these batteries has risen considerably. They were about 6d. or 9d. before the war, they rose to 1s. 9½d during the war, and today they cost something in the neighbourhood of 2s. 3d. Also, by some obscure working of the economic law of diminishing returns—which no doubt the Chancellor can explain but which I do not understand—as the price goes up, the quality and life of the batteries decrease. However, the best way of showing my gratitude is by not delaying the proceedings any longer. I thank the Chancellor for the concession

Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)

I would like to thank the Chancellor for including in this reduction of Purchase Tax wigs or transformations. At three o'clock in the morning, during the earlier discussions on the Finance Bill, I moved to include them and I want to point out that I am not concerned with those "white curled clouds" that we call judges' wigs, mentioned in Cobbett's "Rural Rides"; I am concerned with the ordinary varieties. I have discovered one case in my own constituency of the daughter of a miner becoming completely bald at the age of five. Now nearly 17, she has to buy these transformations, and each one costs about £25 to £30. The girl has to buy two at a time and there is 100 per cent. Purchase Tax on them I think wigs are justly at the top of the list of those articles that are to be exempt, and on behalf of my constituent and of other people afflicted in this way, I thank the Chancellor for this concession.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite

When, during the Committee stage, we were labouring diligently on this question of Purchase Tax reliefs and exemptions, the Chancellor stated that the area of concessions would be £2 million He may recall that I urged upon him a certain flexibility in this matter. I congratulate him on having enlarged the area of concessions to this figure of £3,600,000. Although I detect some inflationary signs around us, I do not think the Chancellor can be accused of improvidence by this very small extension of Purchase Tax reliefs. I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Davies) because, had I been called a little earlier, I was going to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. I have always understood that there is a distinction between a transformation and a wig. A transformation is something worn by the afflicted person, generally a female, as in the instance just given, who has to wear something to conceal baldness.

I have always understood that to be a transformation as opposed to what I would describe as a uniform wig, as worn by the occupant of the Chair in this House, or in the legal profession, or the theatrical profession. Those, for instance, taking part in a period play such as "Merrie England," wear wigs as part of their uniform. I am not clear whether those wigs are also brought in—all wigs, whether necessary or otherwise.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Dalton

All are exempt, except the Tories.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

I must not be led astray. I wish to endorse the words which fell from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), with whom I am not frequently in agreement, as to the haphazard and higgledy-piggledy manner in which the Schedule has been put together. It is really a thing of shreds and patches such as one would not expect from a Government, who are continually reminding us that they have a mandate for orderly planning. There must be very considerable industrial repercussions as a result of some of these concessions. I would like next year to see some machinery such as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). These matters should be carefully examined on their merits, and not merely left to those who have bright ideas, very often after the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, particularly when we are told, as we were told this year, that there is to be a kind of Dutch auction. There is a great deal in what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said about these matters depending so much on the time and the atmosphere in the House. At 3 o'clock in the morning, hilarity often develops, and it becomes difficult to put over a serious argument. I endorse the suggestion that next year we should not have an auction, but that the Government should come before us with proposals for such relaxations as they think possible and proper. At the same tithe I hope they will be open to argument from any part of the House where it is thought that the list could be improved by being altered, or even extended. That would be a tidier method and I hope that by the time we have next year's Finance Bill before us, we shall have such a method.

Douglas Marshall (Bodmin)

I rise to thank the Chancellor for one or two reliefs he has given, particularly in regard to irons, acetylene lamps, and sailing vessels. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) has cleared up the question of the "remote control" iron. I did not quite understand what the Chancellor was implying at the time, or whether there was an iron which one can move about without arm control. I have never heard of one myself.

Mr. Dalton

They are all exempt, anyhow.

Mr. Marshall

The Chancellor paid tribute to seamanship, and recognised the vital importance of it to this country. By this remission, he will help small shipyards. I trust that the House will recognise the fact and will also pay tribute to the small shipyards Which will be absolutely vital to the security of this country should we ever be in danger. The Chancellor mentioned that the remission in regard to lamps involved a very small amount of money. I am informed that about 45,000 of these lamps are sold in a year. Although a considerable proportion are not subject to Purchase Tax, as in some cases the individual does not buy them, yet there must be a large number of individuals who do in fact purchase them I am convinced that the Cornish miner, who buys them extensively, will be very grateful to the Chancellor for taking off this tax. As he has seen fit to recognise this point in regard to miners' acetylene lamps, I trust that he will consult with the Minister of Fuel and Power to see whether imports can be saved by winning Cornish tin.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox (Henley)

I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give further information about Vessels primarily designed for propulsion otherwise than by the occupants themselves and parts of, and accessories to, such vessels. In the early hours of the morning, when this was discussed in Committee, he said that he would exempt sailing vessels. Of what he was thinking, I do not know—perhaps it was a nice electric canoe at Maidenhead and it seems that this would exempt electric canoes. On the other hand, there are sailing boats which have auxiliary motors as permanent fixtures, and others which can have a small Evinrude motor attached. There are small rowing boats with auxiliary sails, used on the lochs in Scotland. The Chancellor appears to be getting into difficulties on this Amendment. It looks quite simple, but I would remind him that last year his Department got into great difficulties because at one time rowing boats used for racing were liable to tax, while skiffs, punts, canoes, and cabin boats were not liable. Some people had to pay the tax, and some did not. Eventually it was decided to tax them all. I think it a retrograde step to exempt sailing boats from tax, but not racing eights, or fours, or sculling boats. We ought to encourage the youth of the country to go in for such a healthy sport as rowing. Such a concession could involve only a very small amount, perhaps £5,000 or £10,000 a year, and oars could be exempted as well. I think it is wrong to exempt sailing boats and not to give a similar concession to rowing boats.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

The hon. and gallant Member is well aware that that is not in the Schedule.

Sir G. Fox

I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. What I am asking the Chancellor to do is to explain exactly what is included and what is not included in the concession.

Mr. C. Williams

I will spare the blushes of the Chancellor, or at any rate only cause one or two small blushes, in thanking him most sincerely for this Amendment. I think the right hon. Gentleman shows considerable wisdom in yielding to persuasion and help from all sides of the House, as I think he would be the first to admit. The concessions will help certain small industries in my division, and in other parts of the country, and from that point of view we are very grateful. I will not say anything more on that, because I do not want to be controversial on this subject, or to stir up any feeling between one part of the country and another. We all benefit. The Clyde will benefit and we will benefit in our part of the country in regard to sailing boats.

I think "vermin traps" is meant to be an inclusive term, and would include rat traps, and mouse traps, which have been discussed before. I hope, from a purely agricultural point of view, that the term will also include mole traps. They are very difficult to get, and they are very necessary at the present time in many areas. If we in the agricultural districts do not have to pay Purchase Tax on them, then we are grateful for it. I think that this is one of the points that is meant to be included, but I would like to be sure, because, if it is not, the Chancellor even now can amend his own Amendment. I can see from the Chancellor's face that he is very receptive of this point, and I am sure that he would get full support for everything I am saying on this matter from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

I am speaking on behalf of agriculture in general, because although it may seem only a small matter in itself, divorced from agriculture, it has been one of our small troubles during the war. The concession will help many small people engaged in this occupation, and the matter has another side as well as the agricultural aspect. It will help to produce moleskins, which are valuable at present, as far as the women of the country are concerned who like to dress in furs. That is an additional reason why I have no doubt the Chancellor would be willing to support me. I wish him to be sure that I am grateful for the Amendment, and I only raise this point because I hope his Amendment is as good as I think it is, and as good as he would hope it to be.

Captain Sir Peter Macdonald (Isle of Wight)

I want to add my word of thanks to the Chancellor for having introduced this new change into the Finance Bill by his Amendment, although it is not in the terms that I and my hon. Friends used when we originally put down an Amendment dealing with sailing vessels. I would like to know if this Amendment includes those vessels which the Chancellor accepted.

Mr. Dalton

Sailing vessels.

Sir P. Macdonald

If it does, I have no complaint to make. I am grateful to the Chancellor for the step he has taken. The remission of this tax will give great relief to the various people concerned in the building of these boats. I had one example given to me yesterday of a club which ordered a large number of vessels from small firms, and which cancelled the orders when the Purchase Tax was introduced, and which has now again given the order, which will employ a large num- ber of people. That is only one example of thousands which I have had sent to me by the Boat Builders' Association, in a document which I received, before the Finance Bill was introduced, to say that there were 6,000 cancellations of orders as a result of the 33⅓ per cent. tax on sailing vessels. If this new Clause includes all the things which were contained in my original Amendment, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of my colleagues and myself for having met our request.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Dalton

By leave of the House, I would like briefly to comment upon, and to reply to, the points which have been raised. I am a little surprised that some hon. Members think that the way we have handled the Purchase Tax is a bad plan. After all, the broad position is that in my Budget I did what has been suggested should, in future, be done; I took the initiative in moving a large number of proposals for the removal of Purchase Tax on such things as pots and pans, dressers, kitchen furniture—a large number of things. That has gone down the wind. Everyone accepted it; there was no opposition. But that was some time ago. Our minds work very rapidly here, and that has all been discounted, as they say on the Stock Exchange when they get the American Loan.

I had in the first place considered what I could offer in the remission of Purchase Tax, after considerable study —not patchwork, as I think one hon. Member suggested—in the Treasury for months with my advisors. Some hon. Members wrote letters to me, others spoke to me, and taking account of all that. I put forward a programme of remission costing £15¼ million. I have to be careful, as I have been reminded, not to let purchasing power expand quicker than the production to meet it, or we shall get inflation, and no one will like that. Then. I should have thought, I took a most proper course. "The House of Commons should control finance"— how often is that said? Also, "The private Member, the Back Bench Member, should be allowed a voice; it should not be done at the dictate of a lot of Ministers with a mechanical majority," and so forth Therefore, it was reasonable when I said, "Let everyone have a go. Let everyone put Amendments down. Let them speak, I will listen." I did listen—I listened round the clock once. That is surely the democratic way to do it.

What we—not I, but we as a body— may take credit for is that approval was first given to an initial scheme of reductions and exemptions, and then thereafter democratic discussions proceeded. Following that, I endeavoured to take account of the voices and the weight of argument behind the various propositions, picked a number out and put them down in further Amendments. I should have thought that that was an admirable plan. It is difficult to have an advisory committee or a separate report. One cannot let these things cut. It would be fatal to have a lot of "argy bargy" going on a month beforehand—people issuing interim reports to do this, that and the other. That would have a most unfortunate result. We must keep tax changes and the Budget secret up to the last minute. I do not want to have an advisory committee of busybodies——

Mr. S. Silverman

I do not pretend to speak for anyone but myself but as far as I am concerned, my remarks were not intended by way of criticism of my right hon. Friend. I believe that all of us think that there are some disadvantages in this way of discussing taxation. I thought that they were incidental to a kind of tax which, whatever its justification may be in difficult and temporary circumstances, is, in principle, one to which many of us have always been opposed.

Mr. Dalton

Evidently there are two reasons. It would be out of Order for me to reply to points which have been raised by stating the case for the Purchase Tax. It is a case which, in my view, will continue strong for some years to come, partly from the point of view of revenue, partly as a check on inflation and partly to pay for a large number of desirable things which we all want. It is very much better to pay tax on the price of some articles which are not of the first necessity.

The Purchase Tax is coming off in strips year by year. We shall take it off necessary things first, and next, I hope, off less necessary things. But it is better to pay tax on articles not of prime necessity rather than to impose Income Tax on the small incomes of wage earners and others who are not in a position to meet it. In this field, I am an advocate of indirect as against direct taxation. I am against the direct taxation of the working classes, but to develop that further would be out of order. For years to come we shall need a substantial revenue from Purchase Tax. The only way I can see of deciding how we can gradually pull in our horns—and I hope that gradually we shall be remitting various groups from year to year—is that whoever is Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to think about it and propose a plan in the House. That plan is not to be final, unalterable and immovable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is I or a successor, should listen to the ' arguments produced and then make subsidiary proposals. I think that what has been done this year is a model procedure. I do not feel at all inclined to suggest that it should be altered in the future. So much for the general question.

The noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) asked a question about the date. It is customary to make these reductions to operate a few days after the date when we hope to pass the respective stage of the Bill. The rule about the matter is that these taxes operate at wholesale levels. We are now reverting in part to a discussion we had earlier about tax paid stocks. The Purchase Tax is imposed at wholesale, not at retail, levels. Any retailer who has obtained stocks on which the wholesaler has paid tax and passed the tax on to him is not compelled to reduce that tax by any Board of Trade order or regulation. Of course after the date when the goods are no longer taxed at wholesale levels, then the retailer is subject to the Board of Trade order, or whatever it may be. If the tax is remitted or reduced then pro tantothe permissible price far the retailer is reduced, if it is a price controlled article, as from the time he receives the new supplies which come forward at a later date than 22nd July.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Perhaps I was wrong in taking it as far as the retailer. By what machinery does the Chancellor ensure that the wholesaler is aware of the changes which Parliament is passing today by the time stated?

Mr. Dalton

He is not levied after 22nd July. The tax is no longer charged to him. It is not a difficult thing at all.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Does he read it in the papers?

Mr. Dalton

He finds he is no longer being asked to pay. It is not difficult. It has always worked quite comfortably before. The retailers, we know, have the difficulty, but the wholesalers are only too pleased when they find they are no longer required to pay. The hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) asked whether the rowing boat was included. This exemption applies only to sailing boats. It specifically does not apply to rowing boats or eights. We argued that earlier. It seems to me the sailing boats had a stronger case for relief. To have extended the exemption over the wider field would have cost a good deal more money. Speaking broadly, I felt that the open sea was more deserving than the inland waterway at this stage, but no doubt later we can do something for boats propelled by their occupants along the Thames or the Cam or even the Isis, as I think it is called.

Sir G. Fox

What is the position of a sailing boat which has an auxiliary motor?

Mr. Dalton

Off hand, I would say, if it is primarily designed as a sailing vessel, it will be exempted. The words "primarily designed" would apply. I think that is all right. If it is constructed primarily as a sailing vessel it will be exempt. I was also asked about moles. The answer is that mole traps are included. Vermin traps include the mole trap, and I hope that will be satisfactory to agriculturalists everywhere and, not least, in Torquay.

Mr. C. Williams

Would it include traps for slugs?

Mr. Dalton

I should need notice about slugs. Mole traps will be covered by this. I hope that I have answered the questions which have been raised, or so many of them as I can answer without going outside the Rules of Order. I hope the Committee will now feel that this group of remissions should be adopted.

Mr. Peake

Before we part company with this Amendment in the name of the Chancellor, I hope that he will not close his mind upon the subject raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) and to which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) also addressed himself in the course of a somewhat general discussion upon the nature of the procedure which the Committee and the House have adopted in dealing with these remissions of Purchase Tax. The Chancellor said some words, with which we are all in agreement, no doubt about the House of Commons being the final arbiter in all matters of taxation. That is quite proper and we all subscribe to that doctrine, but it is inevitable under modern conditions that a great deal of our taxation should be of a discriminatory character. That is so, of course, in the range not only of Purchase Tax but of Income Tax. The point which I wish to impress upon the Chancellor in this matter of Purchase Tax where remissions or reductions are demanded is that we are all accustomed, as Members of this House, either to withstanding or yielding to pressure groups of various classes of the population. We get pressure from the old age pensioners, for example. We get pressure from the spinsters or from the married women in regard to some particular amendment of the Income Tax law. But in this matter of Purchase Tax we get pressure not from groups in the population, but from individual manufacturers of articles and individual purveyors of particular commodities. That is quite a different kind of pressure and it is a much more undesirable form of pressure for Members of this House to be subjected to. What we are afraid of, as further remissions and reductions in Purchase Tax fall to be made over enormously wide range of articles, is that there will be continuous pressure by manufacturers of individual goods upon Members of this House, and that whether or not a remission or alteration of Purchase Tax is made in regard to a particular class of goods, will come to depend upon how many Members of Parliament a particular manufacturer can get to support his case and to what extent those Members badger the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is the fear in regard to Purchase Tax and that is why we would like to suggest to the Chancellor that he might give further consideration——

Mr. Dalton

I will.

Mr. Peake

We suggest that he might give further consideration to the idea of having some independent body which might sit possibly in private and which might sift these applications for remission of Purchase Tax before they come before the House.

Amendment agreed to.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Keeling

I beg to move, in page 58, line 5, at the end, to insert: Medal ribbon and miniature medals. Miniature medals, which my Amendment seeks to exempt from Purchase Tax, at present are taxed at varying rates according to the metal of which they are made. The sum involved, though it cannot be very serious from the point of view of the Treasury, casts a substantial burden upon the individual purchaser. I asked Messrs. Spink and Sons, who are the King's medallists, to give me the figures, and they told me that the Purchase Tax on a miniature Victoria Cross is 8s. 8d., on a miniature of the D.S.O. £2 1s. 3d., on the miniature of the Military Cross 10s. 4d., and on the miniature of any of the campaign stars of the recent war 6s. 2d. That is described by an evening newspaper as "a tax on heroes," an expression which, though it fits a newspaper column heading very well, is, perhaps, rather an over-simplification. I suppose that a majority of hon. Members of this House are entitled to wear one or more miniatures, but we do not all claim to be heroes. Still, the expression does put the argument for the Amendment in a nutshell.

The other day, I had the pleasure of going to an evening party given by the London County Council, and saw on the invitation the words, so familiar before the war, "Evening dress and decorations." The chairman of the L.C.C. was good enough to attach to the invitation card an explanatory note, in which he said that he felt that it would be the general desire that the normal practice should now be restored as far as possible. That is a precept which I applaud, especially as it comes from a Labour administration, but it does involve multi-medalled ex-Service men in quite considerable expense, as I have shown. I hope the House will exempt future purchases of miniatures from Purchase Tax. I will only add one word about medal ribbons, and that is that they involve only a very trifling payment of Purchase Tax, but it would be a pleasant gesture to those who have served their country in the field, if they were exempted from paying tax on the emblems of that service.

Brigadier Peto (Barnstaple)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I have just one point to make. The Amendment refers to medal ribbons and miniature medals. I. would like to make it quite clear that this includes all miniature medals and all medal ribbons which are approved by the King to be worn by the recipient, whether they be British or foreign medals. I feel sure that, on all sides of the House, a concession in the terms of this Amendment will be wholeheartedly supported, and, if I may say so, without giving offence, last, but not least, by the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock).

Mr. Dalton

I have looked at this Amendment with every desire to be helpful, but these words will not quite do. I have had a discussion with the hon. Members who put down this Amendment, and I think we can find words that will do what they want, and I am prepared to do that. I think that what we want is something like this, though I am not committing myself: Miniature reproductions of orders and decorations awarded by His Majesty, and ribbons attached thereto. I think we should need some such words as those, taking note of what was said by the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Amendment, and who thought that the words should cover foreign decorations authorised by the King to be worn. I think we can find words for that. It would be a slight extension of the formula I have read out, but it would be my wish to include it. I think that, as the words now stand, they are rather loose and inexact. What I propose to do would be to go into the matter, and have a word with the authorised makers of these decorations, so as to be sure that we get a form of words which, in their experience, would cover the point. It would be possible to make, in a few weeks' time, if the House will permit that procedure, a Treasury Order making this exemption. We are now at a late stage of the Bill, and I cannot insert these words into the terms of the Finance Bill, but I do undertake to look into the matter and try to find words to meet the case which has been put, and, thereafter, to have the Treasury Order made, which, of course, can be discussed in the House, and which will give effect to this exemption.

Mr. Keeling

I hope it will be possible to do that before we adjourn. I think it is desirable, now that people are being demobilised on a very large scale and may want to equip themselves with these miniatures, that they should not have to wait until October. I ask the Chancellor if he will not put in a manuscript Amendment in the terms which he has read out.

Mr. Dalton

No, Sir, I will not. The hon. Member had better take my offer rather than haggle about it. I want to go into it speedily, and, very likely, we can get it done before we adjourn. I will get it done properly. I thought I was meeting the hon. Gentleman. I am prepared to do what I said, but I am not prepared to do anything else.

Captain Crookshank

In the Chancellor's remarks just now, he used the words "ribbons attached thereto", but I understood that it covered all ribbons. There is a medal ribbon worn, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, by a number of ex-Servicemen which is not attached to a miniature at all. His form of words seems to link up the ribbons with the miniatures —two different issues.

Mr. Dalton

They are not always worn in attachment one to the other, but any Service ribbon connected with any campaign, the Africa Star and so forth, I certainly propose to cover, with the medals of the earlier campaign in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and I took part, before we became too old.

Captain Crookshank

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the ribbon "attached thereto," that is, to the miniatures, but this is a wider case than that.

Mr. Dalton

Does that not prove that my offer is a good one? My offer is to go into the matter carefully to find the better form of words than that on the Order Paper. My intention is to find a form of words that will give effect to it.

Mr. Keelingrose——

Mr. Dalton

If the hon. Member goes on much longer, I. will withdraw it.

Mr. Keeling

On the showing of the right hon. Gentleman, that he is entirely in sympathy with us and will introduce an Order, and endeavour to do it before we adjourn, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Sir Wavell Wakefield.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)

On a point of Order. The next two Amendments, on taxicabs and dustbins, are in my name. Upon which Amendment have I been called to speak?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Amendment on taxicabs has not been selected by Mr. Speaker.

Sir W. Wakefield

I beg to move, in page 58, line 5, at the end, to insert "Dustbins."

I would like to assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the major purpose of moving this Amendment is not to facilitate the consigning of the Socialist Government to these receptacles however desirable some of us may think that to be. It is to ask that favourable consideration should be given to the inclusion of dustbins in this Schedule. The reason is that dustbins are a necessity for health—[Interruption.]—and, as the hon. Member opposite reminds me, for the reception of the literature of Socialist candidates in general elections, and for cleanliness and general prevention of disease. The main reason why I am moving this Amendment is because, in certain parts of the country, it is compulsory, under local authority regulations, for householders to have dustbins. On that account, I am suggesting that the Chancellor might favourably consider including dustbins in the Third Schedule. Generally speaking, the majority of articles subject to Purchase Tax are of a luxury or semi-luxury nature. But where people are compelled by law to have dustbins in the interest of the general health, well-being and public advantage of the community, I suggest it is desirable that they should not be subject to tax. I do not wish to detain the House by deducing any further arguments. The point is clear, and I hope that, for the reasons I have given, the Chancellor will favourably consider this Amendment.

Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)

I beg to second the Amendment.

Bearing in mind the warning we had a moment ago that, if we went on haggling, the Chancellor would withdraw his promise and "sock" the ex-Servicemen in the chest where they will be wearing their ribbons, I hesitate to address the House at all on this question of dustbins. However, I feel that they are such an absolute necessity that the extra cost which might prevent people from buying them is a very serious thing. Hon. Members of this House are especially attached to their dustbins because of the literature which flows in upon them in such volume. If many of us felt that we could not afford a dustbin, the conglomeration which would surround us might make it impossible for us to fight our way out of the house.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

Although this Amendment has been moved and seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), respectively, I should not like the House to think it is purely a London matter. Indeed, I am hopeful that if the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, he, also, may rally to our support on this important matter.

I do not know what the cost of this concession would be. I imagine that it might be considerable, but I do not know. However, whether that be so or not, I submit to the Chancellor that this is an Amendment worthy of consideration, if only on the ground that it is now a considerable time since most housewives had the opportunity of purchasing new dustbins. The old dustbins have gone through a period of considerable wear and tear. In fact, I have come down armed with instructions from home, rather than from my constituents, to support this Amendment. This matter does, of course, affect housewives generally, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us that the cost is so great that it would out-balance the new and flexible concessions he has already made, I hope that, at least, dustbins, may be left at the head of the queue when further consideration is given to the abolition of Purchase Tax on other articles. Of course, it may be possible to abolish the tax on dustbins now; I do not know. One is prepared to listen to what the Chancellor is going to say. The dustbin is an article of greater domestic importance than some others which have been included in previous Amendments to the Third Schedule. It has a very high priority among household utensils, and I hope that the answer we are going to get from the Chancellor will not be unsympathetic.

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

I can speak as one with some experience of dustbins. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite) has had the same experience, but at home, when the "Big Chief" gives an order, it has to be obeyed. I sometimes wish that dustbins had been abolished altogether. But that is not what I rose to say. I want to appeal to the Chancellor to accept this Amendment because, if he has been watching events, he must realise that, since the Tories started their campaign, there will now be a greater need than ever for dustbins.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Dalton

There are many moving arguments in favour of this Amendment, to which I am reluctant not to respond. I have been invited to give a statistical appraisal. If I were to exempt dustbins only, that would cost £50,000. But, of course, we cannot exempt dustbins only, because the line of demarcation between the dustbin and the bucket is not clearly drawn. It would be necessary to go rather further and to exclude a number of other receptacles, including the household bucket. The cost of doing that, even drawing the line reasonably narrowly, would be round about £450,000, in a full year. I do not feel that at this stage, we can add that sum to our total commitments, particularly as the tax on this group of articles is now only 16⅔ per cent. It is charged at the lowest rate—not at zoo per cent. and not even at 33⅓ per cent., which is known as the "basic" rate. Therefore, I do not think that the burden placed upon the hon. Gentleman's friends and ours when they have to replenish their stock of dustbins is very heavy, compared with a number of other charges they have to pay. I do not know how the production of dustbins is getting on, but, assuming that they are available, the present rate of tax applying to them would not create any great hardship. However, I will gladly put this matter on the list of reasonably hopeful starters for next year. There is evidently a case for it, although, having regard to the cost, the lowness of the rate and the other remissions I have already agreed to, it would not be right to accede to the request this year.

Sir W. Wakefield

While thanking the Chancellor for his explanation, may I ask him, whether between now and next year, if he does find that there is——

Mr. C. Williamsrose——

Hon. Members

Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) is in possession at the moment.

Sir W. Wakefield

I was going to ask the Chancellor a question prior to withdrawing the Amendment.

Mr. C. Williams

Before the hon. Gentleman withdraws——

Hon. Members

Order.

Sir W. Wakefield

I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he found it difficult next year to include dustbins because of the question of buckets, he could arrive at the definition that a receptacle with a cover on tap is a dustbin.

Mr. Dalton

I will certainly look at it, but I cannot commit myself. It is a point.

Sir W. Wakefield

In view of the Chancellor's undertaking to look at the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dalton

I beg to move, in page 58, line 11, at the end, to insert:

" CLASS OF GOODS BECOMING CHARGEABLE AT REDUCED RATE ON 22ND JULY, 1946. Wallpaper."

This is the wallpaper reduction on which I have already spoken. I do not think I need add anything further.

Mr. C. Williams

On behalf of the whole House, I wish formally to thank the Chancellor for this concession, which will be of great value. I know that hon. Ladies opposite have been ordered not to speak, but I feel that they would particularly like me, on their behalf, to thank the Chancellor for the concession he has made on this occasion. It will help us a great deal in the West Country. I thank the Chancellor most sincerely.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dalton

I beg to move, in page 58, line 32, at the end, to insert:

CLASSES OF GOODS BECOMING CHARGEABLE AT BASIC RATE ON 22ND JULY, 1946.

The following articles not being made partly of fur skin including any skin with fur, hair or wool attached),—

1. 1. garments or footwear made wholly or partly of silk (except silk used for stitching of seams and buttonholes);
2. 2. headgear, ties, scarves, handkerchiefs, muffs, collars, cuffs and gloves made wholly or partly of silk (except silk used for the stitching of seams and buttonholes).

Fabrics (whether in the piece, shaped or partly made up) made wholly or partly of silk (but not including pile fabrics or woven-figured fabrics).

Textile articles of a kind used for domestic purposes and soft furnishings, made wholly or partly of fabrics becoming chargeable at the basic rate as aforesaid."

This is a proposal to reduce the duty on goods containing natural silk from the level of 100 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. The case for this reduction was put by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) and other hon. Members. Four or five hon. Members spoke in support of a proposal of this kind. I have given it careful consideration, and this concession, which has taken me over what I regarded at one time as the safety margin, is really one of my extravagances. Having looked carefully into the matter, I have come to the conclusion that it is difficult to justify a discrimination against natural silk as opposed to artificial silk and other textile materials. This Amendment brings natural silk into line with artificial silk on the 33⅓ per cent. level. No doubt, I shall be pressed by some hon. Members on another occasion to go even further. I will not give any hints as to what plausible extensions of this concession might be suggested, but there are one or two. I have looked at the cost which we would incur, and this particular concession will run me into something in the neighbourhood of very nearly £1 million in a full year. It is, therefore, relatively expensive. On the other hand, it is an important industry and it has many skills which we wish to retain. It has considerable export possibilities. We have, of course, to import the material, But we should be able to export goods with very greatly increased value. The work of British labour on the import produces an export of considerable value, and it is very important to keep the centres of this industry in a state of good employment. Weighing up all the considerations, I think I was justified, though only just justified in view of the general financial situation, in making this proposal. I hope it will meet with the general approval of all parts of the House.

Air-Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield)

I rise to thank the Chancellor most sincerely for the very generous way in which he has considered this proposal. It will be greatly appreciated by my Division and by the silk industry in other parts of the country. As I explained during the Debate in the early hours of the morning, the industry has done a great job in the war, and I am sure the Chancellor will have no regrets about making this decision because the silk industry will play a great part in our economy. I would also like to thank the Financial Secretary for the very courteous way in which he received the deputation from the silk industry with representatives of trades unions and employers. They presented a good case, and this shows what can be done when the industry works together as one body. I thank the Chancellor once again for his consideration.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 59, line 3, at the end, insert: In the entry relating to projectors for substandard films or for slides the words ' or for slides,' shall be deleted.

In page 59, In line 5, at the end, insert: In the entry relating to paper manufactures the word ' wallpaper ' shall be deleted.

In page 59, In line 19, at the end, insert: ''Opposite the entry relating to paper manufactures there shall be inserted the following entry: Wallpaper.'

In page 59, In line 20, at the end, insert: Opposite the entry relating to headgear and immediately after the entry relating to protective helmets there shall be inserted the following entry: 'Wigs.'

In page 59, In line 38, at the end, insert: Opposite the entry relating to lamp chimneys and other illuminating glassware and immediately before the entry relating to domestic cooking and heating appliances there shall be inserted the following entry: 'Glass chimneys and similar primary glasses being chimneys and glasses designed for oil or candle lamps.'

In page 59, In line 46, at the end, insert: "Fireguards."

In page 6o, line 5, at the end insert: Smoothing irons and pressing irons, being irons of a kind used for domestic purposes."—[Mr. Dalton.]

Mr. Dalton

I beg to move, in page too, line 11, at the end, to insert: Acetylene cap lamps and acetylene hand lamps. Opposite the entry relating to electric dry batteries and immediately before the entry relating to batteries designed' for deaf aid appliances there shall be inserted the following entry: 'Electric dry batteries of not more than 6 volts.' Opposite the entry relating to cutlery suitable for domestic or personal use and immediately before the entry relating to appliances specially designed for persons not having the full use of their arms there shall be inserted the following entry: 'Clasp knives (but not including razors or goldsmiths' and silversmiths' wares).'

Mr. C. Williams

I am not sure that this Amendment is as fully consequential as some of the others. It will be noticed that it goes rather further. If the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary would tell me to which Amendment this is consequential I should be obliged, because it is a matter on which I am in doubt. I think there may be a new element in it. If the Chancellor says that it is entirely consequential, of course, I will accept his assurance.

Mr. Dalton

The wording is identical. The words are "acetylene cap lamps and acetylene hand lamps." They are consequential on the earlier Amendment.

Mr. Williams

Where?

Mr. Dalton

In the Amendment to Schedule 3, page 58, line 5, which proposed to insert a whole list of articles including these referred to in this Amendment. It was on that earlier Amendment that the general discussion took place. The hon. Member will see the fifth group of items, which is "Acetylene cap lamps and acetylene hand lamps." This is a consequential Amendment using precisely the same words.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 6o, line 13, leave out "entry," and insert "entries."—[Mr. Dalton.]

Mr. Dalton

I beg to move, in page 60, line 16, at the end, to insert "vermin traps."

Mr. C. Williams

I think it will be remembered that earlier I accepted with very deep gratitude the insertion of these words. I then put a conundrum to the right hon. Gentleman about slug traps, and he was not then able to answer it. I have been waiting for this Amendment because I thought that the Chancellor would be able to answer the question when he came to it. The concession for which I asked would not cost him much money and, in all probability, would more than pay for itself from the point of view of food production.

Mr. Dalton

I shall have to ask the hon. Gentleman for further and better particulars, because those who advise me on these matters are not aware of the nature of a slug trap. Perhaps that is because they are not acquainted with the rural lore in which the hon. Gentleman is an expert. If there be such a convenient contrivance for catching slugs, my guess is that it would be caught by this remission. That would be my practical man's guess. If the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars with a little drawing and a plan it will, no doubt, be very useful, and I will have the matter looked into. I am definitely sympathetic, and my guess is that it is all right.

Mr. Williams

May I be permitted to ask a question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Gentleman can speak only once, except by permission of the House.

Mr. Williams

That is exactly what I was asking for.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member has been refused permission to speak again.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 60, line 19, leave out "Epidiascopes," and insert: Projectors for slides (including projectors for film-strips but not including cinematograph projectors). Lenses and other parts of, and accessories to, projectors exempted as aforesaid."—[Mr. Dalton.]

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Dalton

I beg to move, in page 6o, line 29, at the end, to insert: Opposite the entry relating to appliances, apparatus, accessories and requisites for sports, games, gymnastics or athletics there shall be inserted the following entry: Vessels primarily designed for propulsion otherwise than by the occupants themselves, and parts of, and accessories to, such vessels.

Sir G. Fox

With regard to appliances for athletics, could the Chancellor find some way of including apparatus for racing eights under that term? If he could find some way to include that, it would meet the needs of the rowing community.

Mr. Dalton

As it stands, it is quite clear that racing eights are not included in the concession. This is including in tae broad category of appliances, apparatus, accessories and requisites for sports, games … a particular class of sailing vessels defined in this Amendment. At this stage I cannot do more. However, I would very much like—and I put this very near the top of the list myself, without prompting —to clear the whole of this group of appliances used in connection with athletics of all forms. I should very much like to do it in a way which would include racing eights with all the other things.

Mr. C. Williams

Under this Amendment the Chancellor may, by mistake, be doing what my hon. and gallant Friend has just asked him to do. I hope he is. I hope he will not look at it too closely. If at a later stage he finds these requisites in regard to sports include racing eights, I hope he will be lenient to it. We shall all remember the kindliness with which he has just spoken on the subject. I congratulate him on the further advance, in that he is taking this particular subject to a higher level of priority than it had earlier in the day. I think the right hon. Gentleman is on the upgrade.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 60, line 36, at the end, insert: 'Opposite the entry relating to pictures, prints, engravings, photographs and other articles there shall be inserted the following entry:— 'Cinematograph films, film-strips and lantern sides, being films, film-strips and slides containing pictures for exhibition by means of a projector.'

In line 39, at the end, insert: In the entry relating to garments or footwear the words ' or silk (except silk used for the stitching of seams and buttonholes) ' shall be deleted. In the entry relating to headgear, ties, scarves, handkerchiefs, muffs, collars, cuffs and gloves the words ' or silk (except silk used for the stitching of seams and buttonhoes) ' shall be deleted.

In line 43, at the end, insert: In the entry relating to fabrics the words 'Fabrics made wholly or partly of silk' shall be deleted."—[Mr. Dalton.]