HC Deb 05 March 1959 vol 601 cc611-4
26. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a miniature pottery dish is subject to Purchase Tax at 15 per cent. whereas an equivalent article with a groove for a cigarette, a whiff or a cigar, is subject to Purchase Tax at 30 per cent.; and, as both are basically the same article, whether he will remedy the imposition placed on the makers of the latter articles.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll)

These are not the same article. One is clearly an ashtray, the other is not.

Mr. Nabarro

Will my hon. Friend do something to persuade the Chancellor to reform Purchase Tax on all receptacles? Is he aware that some baskets attract no tax, some a tax of 15 per cent. and some a tax of 30 per cent.? Further, some pottery boxes attract a tax of 15 per cent. and some 30 per cent., although they are the same article, save only the latter having a little groove? Will he ask the officials at the Treasury how stupid they are prepared to be?

Mr. Erroll

I resent the slight on the officials of the Treasury contained in my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I am not aware of baskets being used as ashtrays.

Dr. Stross

is the hon. Gentleman aware that two evils are pointed out in the Question: first, the 30 per cent. tax on an ashtray and, secondly, a 15 per cent. tax on pottery? Is not he frightened that if he does not remedy this matter I shall ask the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to support me in an appropriate Amendment to the Finance Bill?

Mr. Erroll

The point is that an ashtray is a smoker's requisite, properly taxable at 30 per cent. If porcelain ashtrays were taxed at 15 per cent., we should create yet another anomaly for my hon. Friend, because other types of ashtray made of metal would still be taxed at 30 per cent.

27. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in view of the current practice of exempting from Purchase Tax certain photographic equipment if sold to professional and industrial users under signed covenant, such concessions have not been extended to many of the small cameras and enlargers which are now in general use by professional photographers on whom the Purchase Tax on essential tools of their trade imposes a serious burden.

Mr. Erroll

There is an exemption for cameras and enlargers suitable only for industrial, scientific or military use. Certain enlargers which appear to be border-line are given the benefit of this exemption on the understanding that they will only be sold for such use. Small cameras and enlargers referred to in the last part of the Question are clearly right outside this exemption.

Mr. Nabarro

Is my hon. Friend aware that the last part of that Answer is entirely wrong? Has he never seen, for example, a Zeiss miniature camera complete with an enlarger and lighting equipment used by Press photographers and other professional people solely for the pursuance of their avocations and professions? Why should he discriminate against cameras used for professional purposes just because they happen to be small in size'? Will my hon. Friend now go away and do his homework properly?

Mr. Erroll

I am surprised to find my hon. Friend so offensive this afternoon. I can only say to him that apparently he has not noticed that the cameras he has described are frequently used by amateurs.

Mr. Nabarro

Yes, but also by professionals.

Mr. MacDermot

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be dissuaded by the form of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions from looking into the substance of them. Is he aware that this problem is causing very considerable concern to professional people who have to use cameras in a rather smaller way of business than the big firms who take advantage of the concession?

Mr. Erroll

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have done my homework carefully on this occasion. While I appreciate the difficulties, the fact remains that these cameras are extensively used by amateurs, on whom the tax is properly levied.

28. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the memorandum presented by the British Jewellers Association in December, 1958, upon prospects for further increased export trade following a reduction in the Purchase Tax rate of 60 per cent. on silver articles; and, in view of the special craft interests involved which are not dissimilar to those concerned with the manufacture of pianos which were freed from Purchase Tax several years ago and of the desirability of stimulating export trade, whether he will now remove altogether purchase tax from silver articles.

Mr. Erroll

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend last Thursday.

Mr. Nabarro

That was a long time ago. Is not my hon. Friend aware that, since Purchase Tax on silverware was reduced from 60 to 30 per cent. in the last Finance Act, exports have gone up very considerably? Is he now aware that as a result of the recent vicious impost of Purchase Tax on second-hand gem jewellery the silverware industry is afraid that the predatory habits of the Chancellor will extend to second-hand silverware as well? Will he give the House an assurance that that is not the Chancellor's intention this Thursday or next Thursday?

Mr. Erroll

My hon. Friend's supplementary question differs substantially from the main Question, which deals solely with silverware. Were my hon. Friend's suggestion to be acceded to, we should then have the anomalous position that silver teapots were tax-free whereas teapots made of porcelain would still carry a 15 per cent. tax.

Mr. Jay

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he need not worry about the language of his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) because he never backs up his bark at Question Time with any bite in the Division Lobby?