HC Deb 09 March 1959 vol 601 cc883-5
53. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, although decorations including ribbon bars are exempt from Purchase Tax, this exemption does not at present apply to rosettes and similar articles of a kind worn affixed to a made-up ribbon bar, and that such articles, if sold separately under a statutory heading, are chargeable with tax; and whether he will arrange for the exemption of such additions to ribbon bars at an early date.

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

The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir", and to the second part "No, Sir".

Mr. Nabarro

That method of reply fails to show to the House that the Treasury has decided for some extraordinary reason to place Purchase Tax on rosettes mounted on war medal ribbons which are the insignia of special acts of gallantry in the field. Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer decide to discriminate unilaterally against gallantry in action?

Mr. Erroll

When the emblems are sold fixed to a made-up ribbon bar the bar and emblems are exempt.

Mr. Nabarro

But many men who hold special decorations are obliged to buy the rosettes separately. If the war medal ribbon is exempt from Purchase Tax, why should the mark of special gallantry in the form of the rosette attract Purchase Tax? Will my hon. Friend stop evading the question?

Mr. Erroll

The further answer to the further question is that these rosettes and emblems, when sold loose or separately, could not invariably be separately distinguished from other accessories for wearing apparel and, therefore, in the interests of consistency, these are taxed at the uniform rate.

Mr. Nabarro

What a stupid answer!

54. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why nail cleaners, forceps and tweezers under 4½ inches in length and corn rasps, all for the use of human beings, are chargeable to Purchase Tax at 60 per cent. whereas animal toilet brushes are chargeable at only 30 per cent. and animal dandy brushes more than 7 inches in length are not chargeable to Purchase Tax at all; and whether he will undertake to review these anomalies before introducing future Purchase Tax proposals.

Mr. Erroll

I do not think it anomalous that animal toilet requisites should be charged at the same rate as similar articles used by my hon. Friend. Articles specially designed for cleaning farm livestock are not toilet requisites.

Mr. Nabarro

That may be so, but does my hon. Friend deny that in many instances articles for the personal hygiene of a human being are charged at a much higher rate of Purchase Tax than similar articles used for the hygiene of animals? Why should poodles or ponies be preferred to myself in matters of personal hygiene?

Mr. Erroll

I should have thought there are obvious reasons for preferring a poodle.

55. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, whereas the general rate of Purchase Tax applicable to mirrors is 30 per cent., splash backs incorporating permanent affixed mirrors are only chargeable at 15 per cent. under Group 11 (c) if the height of the splash back measures between its lower edge and the lowest point of the mirror 16 inches or more and that motor car driving mirrors are not subject to tax at all; and whether he will investigate these anomalies with a view to providing that henceforward mirrors shall not in any case be subject to Purchase Tax at a higher rate than other items of domestic furniture.

Mr. Erroll

My hon. Friend's suggestion would give rise to anomalies; it would not reduce them.

Mr. Nabarro

Is it not equally logical, in view of what my hon. Friend has said, to apply a 30 per cent. Purchase Tax to "Alice Through the Looking Glass"?

Mr. Erroll

That is a book and the mirror is only an incidental part of the book.