HC Deb 15 July 1958 vol 591 cc1175-80
Mr. Maudling

I beg to move, in page 31, line 27, at the end, to insert: (a) in the case of helmets designed to protect the head from injury, where the rate under Group 3 would be reduced under sub-paragraph (1) above to 5 per cent., tax shall not be chargeable under that Group after the sixteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight. I suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it might be convenient to take at the same time the associated Amendment, in the Second Schedule, in page 34, line 42, at end insert:

Not chargeable under this Group

Helmets designed to protect the head from injury.

This proposal is intended to exempt from Purchase Tax helmets designed to protect the heads of firemen—broadly speaking, crash helmets, of which we have had much discussion. I said in Committee that I would discuss this matter with by right hon. Friend the Chancellor. He has decided to agree that crash helmets should be exempted from Purchase Tax. He has fixed on a former definition which includes all helmets designed to protect the heads of firemen. It would not include sports requisities, such as scrum hats and fencing helmets, which are taxed under a different group. The intention is to deal with crash helmets—for example, firemen's helmets, which the House has had in mind on previous occasions when discussing the matter.

The position is anomalous. It is certainly creating a new anomaly, but my right hon. Friend felt that in all the circumstances, weighing up the difficult matters to decide, it was probably sensible not to try to define by a general category but to say that helmets designed to protect the head are in future to be free from tax. He hopes to be able to leave it at that.

Mrs. White

Even at this late hour we should express our gratification that at least one of the constructive suggestions put forward by the Opposition has been accepted by the Chancellor. We had a very good debate on protective clothing in general in Committee. We are only sorry that the Chancellor did not on that occasion feel able to accept our proposals that protective clothing of any kind, and that used in industry especially, should be exempt from Purchase Tax. He had already decided that he could not face the outcry that arose when miners' protective helmets were made subject to Purchase Tax. Although this may lead to anomalies, we are glad that on this occasion the Chancellor has allowed himself to be moved by common sense.

I am sure that such hon. Members as are still with us will be extremely grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to give way, not merely on industrial helmets and firemen's helmets, which were mentioned in previous stages of the debate, but on that important matter of crash helmets for motor-cyclists, because I think that all of us are very anxious that the maximum encouragement should be given to them to wear these helmets. Serious and fatal injuries occur to many people through not wearing them. Although I grant that the Purchase Tax on these articles is not very large, we hope that the fact that they are now to be entirely exempt will be widely publicised and that encouragement will be given to those who engage in the very dangerous occupation of motor-cycling to buy protective helmets. We welcome this concession. We are glad that in this small but important respect the Chancellor has paid attention to representations made from this side of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maudling

I beg to move, in page 32, line 45, at the end to insert: (3) As from the seventeenth day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight, the following gas burning furnaces for central heating systems, whether or not incorporating electric fans or electric pumps or both, but not otherwise electrically operated, shall be exempt from tax, that is to say— It would be convenient to consider also the Amendment in page 40, line 36, at end insert: (5) Gas burning furnaces for central heating systems, whether or not incorporating electric fans or electric pumps or both, but not otherwise electrically operated, the following—

  1. (a) water boilers, but not including appliances of an output less than 30,000 British thermal units per hour;
  2. (b) appliances supplied with a system of ducting and designed only for the transmission of heated air through such ducting to two or more rooms simultaneously.
The Amendments have the simple purpose to exempt from Purchase Tax gas fire appliances or domestic central heating of the kinds described. Oil-fired and solid fuel central heating furnaces are free of Purchase Tax. Therefore, it seems wrong that gas-fired furnaces performing exactly the same purpose should remain taxed. This is clearly an anomaly and my right hon. Friend puts forward the Amendments to remove it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Dugdale (West Bromwich)

I beg to move, in page 33, line 30, at the end to insert: (4) Asbestos leggings of a kind used by foundry workers shall be exempt from tax.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It will be convenient also to discuss the three other Amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale)—

In page 33, line 30, at end insert: (4) Asbestos spats of a kind used by foundry workers shall be exempt from tax. In page 35, line 8, at end insert: (4) Asbestos leggings of a kind used by foundry workers. In page 35, line 8, at end insert: (4) Asbestos spats of a kind used by foundry workers.

Mr. Dugdale

The Paymaster-General said that he had created an anomaly and removed another. He created the anomaly in removing Purchase Tax on protective headgear for motor-cyclists and others. We ask him to create a very much smaller anomaly which will cause him much less difficulty by removing this irksome tax on protective clothing for foundry workers.

I would mention the points that the Chancellor may have against us. He may say that it would introduce a new principle. I do not think that that argument could be accepted. Foundrymen's boots are already exempt, and it would therefore seem reasonable that their spats and leggings, which are almost extensions of the boots, should also be exempt. It may be said that the concession would be open to abuse, but people are unlikely to buy asbestos leggings to use otherwise than for protection.

I would say, in conclusion, that this tax is paid for by the foundry workers themselves. It falls directly upon them. They are a deserving section of the community, and they work exceedingly hard in producing a commodity of very great value to this country. Under all those circumstances I think we can expect the Paymaster-General to look kindly upon the Amendments and agree to them.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson (Stirling and Falkirk Burghs)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not want to break the tradition that we have been building up, of seconding without making speeches, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that for a very long time the foundry industry has been one of the high accident rate industries. I would also remind him that in industry generally the reduction of the accident rate has usually gone hand in hand with the increased wearing of protective clothing, and that itself has usually gone hand in hand with the remission of tax. My right hon. Friend has pointed out the logical basis for extending the remission to cover these leggings and spats, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will favourably consider the matter.

Mr. Maudling

The right hon. Gentleman has great knowledge of these matters. He was good enough to come with one of his colleagues to explain the situation to me, and I regret that I shall not be able to meet him in the matter.

The position in regard to the various forms of protective clothing worn by foundry workers is that their boots are exempt—I understand that they are the same type as are worn by miners—and other articles, like goggles, are either not taxable or are normally provided by the employer. There remains only the question of asbestos spats and leggings, which are provided mainly by the men themselves. They are subject to Purchase Tax. In the case of spats the tax is unlikely to exceed 6d., and for a pair of leggings it is unlikely to exceed 2s. Therefore, the money involved is not large.

The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt say that a principle is involved. This illustrates the terribly difficult position we get into on this question of protective clothing. I ventured to say earlier that it is impossible to exempt protective clothing entirely because we do not know where the definition ends. We would have to consider things like mackintoshes and sou'westers, which one hon. Member opposite mentioned earlier. Equally, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to define clothing which is solely protective in its character. If, on the other hand, we start picking and choosing, where do we end? If we took asbestos leggings out, what should we do about other forms of asbestos protective clothing? And if we take out asbestos clothing, why should we not take out rubber or other forms of leggings which are equally protective? It is a terribly difficult thing to do, and once we start introducing these special exemptions it is almost impossible to stop.

The right hon. Member may ask why we have done it in the case of helmets. The answer is that we have to make a choice in these matters. We must either be entirely logical, or sometimes depart a little from the rule of logic. My right hon. Friend thought that there was a good case, from a common sense point of view, for saying that helmets are a separate and specially distinguishable category, which he would treat as such, but he does not feel that he could extend the remission to leggings at present. It would not be possible to do that without going far into the field of protective clothing.

I am sorry to have to say this to the right hon. Gentleman, because I know how much he and his colleagues feel about this matter, and on the face of it he has put forward a strong argument. I would ask him to bear in mind the difficulties which would attend my right hon. Friend if he agreed to move on this front. I admit that this is the only remaining article of foundry workers' protective clothing which bears Purchase Tax, and that the amount of tax involved is not substantial, but I regret that I cannot accept the Amendments.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Jay

The Paymaster-General's reply is rather disappointing. Indeed, when he said that this was the only remaining article of protective clothing worn in foundries which does bear tax, I thought that emphasised the anomaly which the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to perpetuate. We have been told over the last seven years that it was impossible and impracticable to exempt the protective helmets which the Government have finally this year persuaded themselves to exempt. I suppose that we shall have to put forward this argument for another five years before the Government come to the same conclusion about the asbestos leggings and spats.

Mr. Maudling

If that argument is extended too much we might have to extend it to gaiters.

Mr. Jay

The Paymaster-General said that this concession, if granted, would have to be extended to other types of clothing such as sou'westers and mackintoshes. I should have thought that there was a clear difference here. These spats and leggings are, after all, made of asbestos, which is a substance nobody would wear for purposes other than protection against accident. I should have thought that there was a difference between clothing which was used as a protection against accidents at work and another type of clothing which is simply used for protection against the weather, at work or otherwise.

I cannot help feeling that if the Government wished to do this they might have found a way. We hope that this Amendment will be returned to in other years with more profit than tonight.

Amendment negatived.