§ 38. Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons it has been decided that brushes used for cleaning shoes or teeth shall be free of Purchase Tax, but that brushes used for applying shaving soap or brushing the hair, clothes, or nails, are liable to Purchase Tax at substantial rates; and whether he will give an assurance that this anomaly will be dealt with at an early date by abolishing the tax on all types of brushes.
Mr. AmoryShaving brushes and hair, clothes and nail brushes are taxable as toilet requisites. Toothbrushes were similarly taxable until 1951 when they were specifically exempted by this House. Shoe brushes are also exempt for the reasons explained by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government on 8th December, 1955.
The review of alleged Purchase Tax anomalies initiated by my predecessor is proceeding, but I can give no such assurance as my hon. Friend asks.
§ Mr. NabarroWould not my right hon. Friend agree that it is fiscal lunacy to discriminate in matters of personal clean-lines and hygiene? Is it his purpose to encourage cleanliness of the teeth and deprecate cleanliness of the fingernails? Surely those very insanitary habits of his predecessors ought rapidly to be remedied?
§ Mr. JayIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that Purchase Tax was simplified into three rates and that all the changes which have complicated it since 1951 have been supported in the Division Lobby by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro?
§ Mr. NabarroIs it not a fact that every one of these anomalies springs from the Purchase Tax arrangements made between 1945 and 1951 and that they have not been made worse by Conservative Administrations?
Mr. H. WilsonHas not the Chancellor told us that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition removed toothbrushes from Purchase Tax in 1951, and have we not had seven years since that time in which Conservative Chancellors might have followed his example in the matters about which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is concerned?
§ Mr. NabarroI will return to the matter later.
§ 39. Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a container for shoe-polishing materials, which consists of a case fastened by a stud and containing two shoe brushes, two tins of polish, and two dusters, is at present subjected to Purchase Tax, whereas a shoe-cleaning case, made in the shape of a binocular case in three separate pieces, the ends of which contain a brush and the centre of which contains the dusters and polish tins, is free of tax; and whether he will review this matter, with the object of freeing from Purchase Tax all cases used for containing shoe-cleaning materials.
Mr. AmoryNo, Sir. If my hon. Friend will send me samples or further details I will have the liability of these articles examined.
§ Mr. NabarroI cannot very well send my right hon. Friend voluminous packages representative of cleaning equipment, and everything that goes in them. Is he not aware that there have been incessant representations by manufacturers showing these inequalities as between product and product, all of which is impairing the British export trade? Should my right hon. Friend, therefore, defer his investigations into these important matters?
Mr. AmoryI did not indicate that I was deferring investigation. I said that investigations were proceeding continuously.