HC Deb 22 January 1948 vol 446 cc378-9
50. Mr. Ronald Chamberlain

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums the gifts and presents received from abroad by Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth on the occasion of her recent marriage represent in the matter of Purchase Tax and Customs duties, respectively; and whether the whole of these amounts was excused from payment.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall)

Gifts sent from abroad to Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth have so far involved liability to £11,004 4s. 8d. Purchase Tax and £1,310 15s. 8d. Customs duties; the whole of these amounts has been waived.

Mr. Chamberlain

Will the right hon. Gentleman say, first, on exactly what basis of authority he is able to waive these payments and, secondly, if he has that authority, why does he refuse to waive it in the case of a Brazilian wedding present to one of my constituents which the constituent is unable to redeem?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

The Customs and Excise have authority in certain cases to waive these duties if that should be the proper course to take. In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, as I think I told my hon. Friend when he put a Question before Christmas, these gifts are, surely, in a different category from private gifts. They have come almost entirely from foreign Governments and States and are more a gesture of good will to this country than personal gifts.

Mr. Wilson Harris

Is it customary to make public the liability of individuals in regard to Income Tax or Customs Duty or Purchase Tax and, if not, why was it done in this case?

Mr. Marlowe

Did not the public exhibition of these gifts result in a vastly greater amount being raised for charity?

Mr. C. Poole

Is the difference in category not that these presents were sent to someone who can quite well do without them, whereas many other presents are sent to people who badly need them and who cannot afford to pay the Purchase Tax?

Earl Winterton

May I call attention to page 430 of the revised version of Erskine May in which it states: Unless the discussion is based on a substantive Motion reflections must not be cast in Debate on the Heir to the Throne. I would like to ask whether the last supplementary question is not k vulgar insinuation against the Heiress to the Throne?

Mr. Speaker

There was no reflection on the Heiress to the Throne. The hon. Member was raising the difference, but he did not cast any reflection on the Heiress. However, I quite agree with the noble Lord that it would be wrong to go on.

Mr. C. Poole

May I make it perfectly clear that if I cast any reflection, it is not on the Crown, but on the Department?