§ 11. Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons radio and television sets, cosmetics and cars are still subject to Purchase Tax at 50 per cent., whereas electrical appliances attract 25 per cent. Purchase Tax, floor covering and pottery 12½ per cent., and clothes and furniture 5 per cent.; what considerations prompted these rates in the current year; and whether it is his policy to continue such fiscal practices involving a radio or television set being taxed twice as heavily as any other electrical appliance and four times as heavily as a carpet.
§ Mr. BarberThe reasons were given by my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor in his Budget Speech in 1958, when he established the present structure of the Purchase Tax. As to the last part of the Question, I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget Statement.
§ Mr. NabarroIs it not a fact that there is a great deal of difference in calibre and fiscal philosophy between the last Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present one? Are we to suppose that all the policies enunciated by the last Chancellor are to be practised by the present Chancellor and that these undesirable differentials in Purchase Tax—which, for example, cause a radio set to be taxed ten times as heavily as an expensive cocktail cabinet—are to be carried forward indefinitely into the future?
§ Mr. BarberI think that my hon. Friend—I say this with great respect—would be well advised not to suppose what he has just suggested.