HC Deb 19 November 1959 vol 613 cc1337-9
43. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, under his regulations, Purchase Tax on dustbins bought by local authorities in quantities of 250 or more is greater per bin than when bought in quantities of a dozen.

Mr. Barber

This anomaly arose temporarily owing to changes in pricing arrangements in the trade which required a new method of tax assessment. Measures have now been taken to adjust the matter.

Mr. Allaun

Is the Minister aware that that Answer will be received with considerable satisfaction?

44. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will end the Purchase Tax on dustbins.

Mr. Barber

My right hon. Friend must not be expected to anticipate his Budget Statement.

Mr. Allaun

Since the poorest family in the land needs a dustbin, is not this the most obvious of necessities? Does not this cost local authorities and thus their ratepayers roughly £250,000 a year?

Mr. Barber

I agree that this is a necessity, but so are other items which come within the same group. I do not think that hon. Members in general would think it right in principle, and it would not be possible, to relieve articles of tax simply on the ground that the cost of them falls to a greater or lesser extent on the local authority.

Mr. H. Wilson

For his better information on this Question, will the hon. Member study the debate on the Autumn Budget of 1955? Will he bear in mind that this tax was introduced by the present Home Secretary in a post-election Budget? Is it still the Government's policy that an essential ingredient in the fight against inflation is to tax essentials so that the consumer will have less money to spend on other things?

Mr. Barber

As I said earlier, I cannot anticipate what my right hon. Friend will say in his Budget Statement. I have no doubt that he will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

55. Mr. Janner

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures setting out the receipts from Purchase Tax on perfumery, cosmetics and toilet preparations at the higher rates of 90 per cent., 60 per cent. and 50 per cent. for each quarter from that ended 30th June, 1957, to the present date; and, having regard to those figures, what he estimates would be the reduction in the annual yield of Purchase Tax on such goods if it were reduced from 50 per cent. to 25 per cent.

Mr. Barber

As the Answer to the first part of the Question contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Answer to the second part of the Question is about £7 million a year.

Following are the figures:

Receipts in Quarter ended 30th June Receipts of tax charged Receipts in Quarter ended 30th September Receipts of tax charged Receipts in Quarter ended 31st December Receipts of tax charged Receipts in Quarter ended 31st March Receipts of tax charged Total
£,000 Per cent. £,000 Per cent. £,000 Per cent. £,000 Per cent. £,000
1957–58 4,146 90 4,853 90 5,068 90 6,602 90 20,669
1958–59 4,268 90 3,993 90 4,478 60 5,577 60 18,316
to 15.4.58;
1959–60 3,118 60 3,792 60
to 7.4.59;
NOTE:—Purchase Tax is payable quarterly in arrear so that receipts in a given quarter reflect the chargeable transactions which took place in the previous quarter at the then prevailing rates of tax.