HC Deb 27 February 1958 vol 583 cc528-30
29. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the exemption from Purchase Tax of certain articles which can be fitted into stoves and ranges to restrict their fuel content and consumption only extends to cast iron grids used for that purpose if it can be shown that they effect a substantial reduction in fuel capacity; what precise tests are applied in this connection; and what is the present approximate annual revenue with respect to Purchase Tax on cast iron grids used for restricting the fuel capacity of stoves but which do not effect any substantial reduction in such capacity.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon)

The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." The test applied is that of common sense. As regards revenue, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) on 17th December.

Mr. Nabarro

Should not Purchase Tax be removed altogether from all domestic fuel efficiency appliances? Is it not a fact that successive Ministers of Fuel and Power have advocated the use of these appliances, and is not Treasury policy directly inimical to the national interest in saving fuel?

Mr. Simon

The answer to the last part of the supplementary question is "No, Sir". As to the rest, my right hon. Friend is reviewing the Surtax Schedules, as my hon. Friend knows.

Mr. Nabarro

On a point of order. There is nothing about Surtax in this Question. It is Purchase Tax.

30. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the exemption of hat pins from the charge of Purchase Tax under haberdashery does not extend to articles with blunt ends or articles having a head at both ends of the pin, and that in the case of hat pins with a single small head of glass the exemption is not given if the head is larger than half an inch in any dimension; whether he will simplify the arrangements with regard to the charging of Purchase Tax on hat pins; and what is the approximate revenue received from Purchase Tax on hat pins.

Mr. Simon

The statutory exemption is for "pins of base metal". I see no ground for extending it to articles other than those essentially of base metal, still less to articles which are not pins at all. I have no evidence to show that the exemption gives rise to any difficulties, but if my hon. Friend should furnish any such evidence, I will, of course, be glad to examine it. On the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) gave him on 17th December.

Mr. Nabarro

This is a pretty sharp point, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but will my hon. and learned Friend have regard to the fact that what he is doing by fiscal means is seeking to discriminate and influence the course of ladies' fashions in haberdashery and millinery, which is surely not part of the purpose and policy of a Chancellor of the Exchequer? Ought not all these articles to be free of Purchase Tax?

Mr. Simon

Heaven forbid that my right hon. Friend or I should attempt to Influence the course of ladies' fashions.

40. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why safety helmets of the type used by miners and quarrymen are free of Purchase Tax, whereas safety helmets used by firemen and motorcyclists, all on Government advice, are subject to Purchase Tax; what criteria guide such discriminatory treatment of helmets designed to prevent injury and save life; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy these distinctions.

Mr. Simon

The exemption for miners' and quarrymen's helmets was granted exceptionally when the tax was first introduced in 1940. Experience has shown that exemptions of this sort lead to unjustifiable discrimination and anomalies, and successive Governments have decided not to extend them.

Mr. Nabarro

Would my hon. Friend consider exceptionally the case of firemen's helmets? Surely it is as essential to save firemen's lives by protective helmets as it is to save a miner's life or a quarryman's life? As 90 per cent. or more of firemen's helmets are paid for out of public funds, how can a circular transaction of this kind be considered efficient?

Mr. Simon

My Answer stands, in answer to my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but my right hon. Friend is reviewing the Schedules, as my hon. Friend knows, and I will draw his attention to the point.