§ 14. Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the £698 million tobacco revenue estimated for 1957–58 will come from cigarettes; and what alternative taxes he has in mind should the lung cancer scare cause cigarette smoking to be eliminated.
§ 17 and 18. Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what sum he now estimates Tobacco Duty will yield in the current fiscal year; and having regard to the implications for the revenue of the association between lung cancer and smoking, whether he will now make a statement upon the future of the Tobacco Duty;
(2) what additional financial burden will be put on public expenditure by the proposed campaign to publicise the association between lung cancer and atmospheric pollution and smoking, and, having regard to the fact that the more successful the campaign to reduce smoking the more severe will be the impact of reduced revenue from Tobacco Duty upon the Exchequer, what steps he proposes to take to reconcile these matters.
§ 22. Mr. Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount he estimates that the revenue from the Tobacco Duty will fall during the current financial year.
§ 24. Mr. Parkinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on revenue of the Government findings on the relation between smoking and lung cancer.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftAbout 90 per cent. of the estimated yield of Tobacco Duty for the current year relates to cigarettes. I cannot forecast the effect on the revenue of any reduction in smoking consequent upon the Government's decision to draw attention to the Medical Research Council's report on the association between smoking and cancer of the lung. The cost to the Exchequer of publicity by health and education authorities cannot be estimated at this stage.
§ Mr. OsborneIn view of the fact that the revenue from tobacco pays for the National Health Service, the family allowances and more pensions, must we not face the fact that if the Chancellor's right hon. Friend the Minister of Health succeeds in his policy some alternative source of revenue should be found?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftWe may always at various time have to look for alternate sources of revenue, but we do not want to rush into additional taxation.
§ Mr. LiptonIn view of the doubts which have been expressed about the Government's wholeheartedness in the matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—yes—will the Chancellor say whether he still stands by or now recants the statement he made at Barnstaple in February: "We at the Treasury do not want too many people to stop smoking"?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftThat is a perfectly fair point. That remark was made before the General Medical Council reported, and it was a reference to the various sources of revenue of the kind which can be occasionally made in general comment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. NabarroHaving regard to the purity and high moral character of all policies associated with my right hon. Friend, will he give the House a firm undertaking that in his future policy he will be no party to reinforcing the no-smoking campaign of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health by a further fiscal impost on the remaining tobacco smokers?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftI do not want to anticipate my next Budget.
§ Mr. JayShould the Chancellor not be careful of these romantic speeches, whether at Barnstaple or elsewhere, and would not a capital gains tax be an excellent substitute for this tax and, no doubt, have the support of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne)?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftIf the right hon. Gentleman has in mind as part of his policy the raising of £700 million a year by a capital gains tax, he would make a considerable mess of the economy.