§ 48. Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, while removing Purchase Tax by S.I., No. 2398, of 1948, on rubber flooring, tiles or strips not exceeding 450 square inches in area, he has retained Purchase Tax at the rate of 33⅓ per cent. on larger tiles or rubber flooring in rolls.
§ Sir S. CrippsI would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in reply to a similar Question on 6th December.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterWould the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer himself to the supplementary question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) on the Question? Is he now aware that the effect of this arrangement is simply to induce the cutting of rubber strips into many bits of rubber small enough to avoid taxation?
§ Sir S. CrippsI have seen the supplementary question which was put on that occasion. I do not agree with the implication.
§ 55. Mr. Lipsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that owners of wireless sets in places where electricity is not available have to buy a new high tension battery once every two months and so pay Purchase Tax six times a year; and will he consider giving them some relief from a tax which hits them more hardly than it does the owners of electrically-controlled sets.
§ Sir S. CrippsAs my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said when this matter was raised on the Adjournment on 28th July, it is one that we shall bear in mind.