§ 39. Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the exemption from Purchase Tax already extended to celestes, clavichords, harpsichords, pianofortes, spinets, virginals, pipe organs, electronic organs and reed organs, may now be extended to all other musical instruments; and what would be the approximate cost of such a concession.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory)My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement. The cost of exempting musical instruments, excluding gramophones, radio-gramophones, record-players, and records, would be rather less than £1 million a year.
§ Mr. NabarroWould my right hon. Friend tell the House, without anticipating his Budget statement, what are the criteria which have caused Treasury officials to impose this highly discriminatory tax system on musical instruments? Why should there be one rate of tax for an oboe or a trombone and a different one for a spinet or a harpsichord? Is it because of the music they make, the noise they make, or what are the considerations?
Mr. AmoryI have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's interest in music, and I should hate to put any obstacle in the way of his acquisition of a trumpet of his own.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerCould the right hon. Gentleman tell us when this decision 197 was taken and whether the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) voted for it?
Mr. AmoryNo, I am afraid I have not that information at the moment, but it has been of long standing.
§ 40. Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what date and for what reasons it was decided that forceps and tweezers under four and a half inches in length and nail nippers not exceeding three and a half inches in length must pay Purchase Tax at 90 per cent., whereas forceps, tweezers and nippers exceeding these lengths are free of tax; whether this matter can be reviewed at an early date; and what is the present approximate annual Purchase Tax revenue in respect of forceps, tweezers and nail nippers.
Mr. AmoryThe object of these longstanding distinctions is to free from tax instruments used by professional chiropodists. I do not think review is called for. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) gave him on 17th December.
§ Mr. NabarroBut is my right hon. Friend really suggesting that the instruments referred to here which are free of tax are used only by chiropodists, when they are known to be widely used by medical practitioners, manicurists and a variety of trades and professions? Why should he discriminate in favour of chiropodists? What is his special interest in toe nails?
Mr. AmoryI can only say that, if my hon. Friend will add to his many existing qualifications that of chiropodist or manicurist, he will be able to obtain the tools of his profession free of tax.
§ 41. Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many disputes with regard to liability to Purchase Tax of various articles have been taken to arbitration during each of the past three years; and what has been the cost of collecting Purchase Tax for each of the last four years for which figures are available.
Mr. AmoryIn 1955, two; in 1956, one; and one since. In reply to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply my 198 right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) gave him on 3rd December.
§ 44. Mr. Owenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will re-examine the Purchase Tax on wireless and television sets.
Mr. AmoryI will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind in connection with my general review of taxation before the Budget.
§ Mr. OwenThat is an encouraging statement, but is the Chancellor aware that wireless and television sets are no longer a luxury and that, in the second half of the twentieth century, they have become a social necessity? Will he not therefore now consider the removal of this restrictive tax?
Mr. AmoryI do not want the hon. Gentleman to become too exhilarated at my reply, because I ought to say that I have promised to keep in consideration also a great many other suggestions made by other hon. Members.
§ 52. Mrs. McLaughlinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that there are a number of safety devices which manufacturers will not produce because they are subject to Purchase Tax; and if he will take steps to remove the tax from these items.
§ Mrs. McLaughlinMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider this matter very carefully, because we are taxing safety? May I remind him that many young men and women are prevented from using their own endeavour and ingenuity to produce safety devices to reduce the tremendous number of accidents in our homes? Will he review this matter again with very great interest and do his utmost?