HC Deb 11 February 1960 vol 617 cc652-4
43. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why busts used for the display of wearing apparel are free from Purchase Tax, while busts produced in quantity for general sale are subject to Purchase Tax at 25 per cent., whereas Note 1 of Group 25 in Customs and Excise Notice No. 78 states that, when such items are comprised in any other article, such as bottle openers, bottle stoppers or corkscrews, the fact that they may be in the form of, or consist substantially of, a figure of bust, does not involve liability under Group 25.

Mr. Barber

Because busts used for the display of wearing apparel are exclusively commercial, not domestic, articles.

Mr. Nabarro

What is the special interest my right hon. Friend has in the dimension of busts which is brought out in this Question? Why is there need for the Treasury to discriminate between various busts? [An HON. MEMBER: "Don't you."] Oh, yes. I do. Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether considerations of uplift apply in this context?

Mr. Barber

I was, of course, referring to fabricated busts. If my hon. Friend will look again at his Question, I think he will see that the difficulty which he finds is caused by the fact that he has not appreciated the distinction between a bust and an ornamental corkscrew.

Mr. Nabarro

Will my hon. Friend explain to the House why there should be a difference in Purchase Tax arrangements between a prefabricated and a fabricated bust, to which he has just referred?

Mr. Barber

I am sorry if I said "prefabricated". I meant to say "fabricated".

Mr. Nabarro

My hon. Friend has got it the wrong way round.

Mr. Barber

I was trying to make a distinction between fabricated busts and natural busts, to which I thought my hon. Friend was referring.

44. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to dispose of the anomaly whereby toilet requisites for animals, such as forceps, tweezers and brushes, are charged to Purchase Tax at half the rate at which similar equipment for human use is charged.

Mr. Barber

My hon. Friend persists in his misunderstanding. Animal toilet requisites are taxed at the same rate as similar articles for human use.

Mr. Nabarro

Is it not a fact that the requisites referred to in this Question, when used for animal purposes, are taxed at only one half the rate at which they are taxed when used for human purposes? Before answering this Question, did my hon. Friend fail to observe that a brush used for brushing the coat of a white rabbit attracts Purchase Tax at only one half of the rate at which his hair brush is charged?

Mr. Barber

I am sorry to have to inform my hon. Friend that once again he has misunderstood the position. The fact is that, so far as the articles to which he refers in his Question—forceps, tweezers, brushes and similar articles—are taxable, there is not and there has never been any difference in the rate of tax according to whether they are for human or for animal use.