IMPORT DUTIES (Hansard, 28 April 1959)

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)
The Question is—

§ Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)
I wonder whether the Government are to give us a brief explanation of the Order.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers)
The Order amends some of the rates of import duty chargeable under the United Kingdom Customs Tariff which came into operation on 1st January, 1959.
I should like to point out that the amendments have been fully discussed with the trade interests concerned. They 1232 arise out of the transposition of the old tariff into the Brussels Nomenclature tariff. The general objective in this transposition was to avoid substantial changes in the existing level of protection while achieving the notable simplification which the Brussels Nomenclature makes possible.
The Brussels Nomenclature contains nearly 1,100 different headings. Since the headings of our old tariff did not correspond to these, it was necessary in most cases to raise subheading providing for different rates of duty on goods falling within a given Nomenclature heading. As a result, our new tariff contains about 3,400 different duty headings. Every attempt was made to avoid excessive complication, and a far greater number of duty headings would have been required to reproduce the charging provisions of the old tariff in every detail.
We have, I think, achieved a valuable simplification, and there has been no significant change in the duties chargeable on the great majority of imports. But, given the complicated and sometimes overlapping provisions of the old tariff, it was inevitable that instances should arise in the early days of the new tariff where adjustments have proved necessary. Some adjustments of this kind were made by amending Orders last year, as the right hon. Member will recall, before the new tariff came into force.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has already warned the House that further Orders might be necessary to deal with cases brought to light by practical experience since 1st January, and the present Order is the first of these. Other cases are at present under consideration, and I should like to inform the House that it will be necessary to lay further amending Orders in due course; but, even so, the total number of cases is small in relation to the vast range and variety of our imports.
The effects of the amendments made by the present Order are set out in the Order itself, and I do not think that I need elaborate on them. The House will see that rates of duty have been increased in some cases and decreased in others. The changes, as compared with the duties originally chargeable under the new tariff, fall under three main headings: first, for yeasts and poultry in air-tight containers the 10 per cent. ad valorem 1233 duty is replaced by a specific duty of generally lower incidence; secondly, for certain articles of rubber and manmade fibres and for certain electronic machines and parts the rate of duty is increased in order to restore as nearly as possible the previously existing level of the protective duty; and, thirdly, for certain photographic and cinematographic apparatus and electro-plating nickel anodes the duty is either reduced or removed.
I should emphasise that these are not changes in the tariff in the normal sense of the word. The amended rates are in every case substantially the same as those charged before 1st January under the old tariff. As a particular example, may I refer to the amendments to headings 40.13 and 40.14. These not only increase the full rate of duty to 30 per cent. ad valorem, but also make Commonwealth goods chargeable at 25 per cent. ad valorem instead of being free of duty. This restores the relationship between the full and preferential rates which obtained under the old tariff. The amendments do not, therefore, represent a new charge on Commonwealth goods.
1234 I accordingly ask the House to approve this Order as a minor but necessary amendment which is in accordance with the general policy followed in preparing the new tariff, and which has the agreement of all the trades concerned.

§ Mr. Jay
This is a complicated matter and outside the field of the Parliamentary Secretary's normal activities. May I ask a question? Am I right in supposing that none of these alterations involves a substantial change in duty? Secondly, in so far as there are any small changes, am I right in thinking that they arise out of the complicated operations of the changes in nomenclature, that, therefore, they are technical causes, and that there is no real change of tariff policy involved in any of these decisions?

§ Mr. Rodgers
Yes, I can give an assurance on both points. As regards the first, the substance of the new duties is the same as under the old tariff, and, secondly, as they arise from technical changes, there is no change in tariff policy.