HC Deb 02 December 1964 vol 703 cc694-9
Mr. MacDermot

I beg to move Amendment No. 124, in page 18, line 12, at the end to insert:

Goods used in building, repairing or servicing aircraft or for tests or experiments

2.—(1) The Commissioners may remit or repay duty in respect of goods—

  1. (a) if satisfied that it is intended to use them as components or parts of any aircraft of a maximum total weight exceeding 18,000 pounds in the course of building, repairing, refitting, maintaining or servicing the aircraft; or
  2. (b) if and so far as the relief appears to the Commissioners to be necessary or expedient with a view to conforming with an international agreement relating to the importation of materials, parts or components to be subjected to tests or experiments in the course of designing or developing a type of aircraft of a maximum total weight exceeding 18,000 pounds.
but subject to such conditions and restrictions as the Commissioners may think fit to impose for the purpose of securing that duty is paid if the goods are used in a way not qualifying for remission or repayment of duty under this paragraph.

(2) A maximum total weight for the purposes of this paragraph is that authorised in the certificate of airworthiness in force in respect of the aircraft or, if there is no such certificate in force, is that ascertained in such manner as the Commissioners may direct.

This is one of the Amendments I referred to yesterday as being one of those which the Government had tabled to meet, as far as we could, the request made to us to apply some of the provisions in the Fourth Schedule of the Import Duties Act to this duty.

The Amendment will enable the Customs to remit or repay the temporary charge on imported goods if it is satisfied that it is intended to use them as components or parts of exempt aircraft or if the goods are covered by an international agreement relating to the importation of materials, parts or components for test or research in the course of designing or developing an exempt aircraft. This is a natural and logical corollary to the exemption for large aircraft.

Mr. du Cann

This is, I am sure, an excellent Amendment, although there is one point which may have some substance and which I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will look into. It concerns small aircraft. A limit, by weight, is involved and I hope that—naturally not at this late hour but soon—he will satisfy himself that the limit is the right one; that the building, repairing or servicing of smaller aircraft will in no way be jeopardised by the fact that this limit exists.

The whole Committee will agree that the smaller aircraft is extremely important, not only for domestic purposes, but also for the export trade, and so on. I would be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman would give his usual careful attention to this matter between now and Report.

Mr. MacDermot

We have considered the matter and have tried to go as far as we reasonably can. We must start with the limitation that the exemption for aircraft is, and must be, limited to large aircraft because they can be defensible as being aircraft which are engaged on international routes and trade. The definition of "heavy aircraft," for this purpose, has been fixed with a generously low weight limit. The result is that it will cover all types, down to the largest of the twin motor helicopters and the biggest of the twin jet executive aircraft, but it will not cover the vast majority of executive aircraft and parts, which will still remain chargeable, like private and club aircraft.

Mr. Peter Emery

Is the Minister aware of the great complication which will arise because components for some of the larger aircraft are also used in exactly the same way for some smaller aircraft? In other words, certain types of nut which have to be used, and which have to be bought in America—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite must realise that we are trying to proceed with serious points, and might let the Committee consider them.

There are certain components that are interchangeable between different aircraft. It is suggested in the aircraft industry that a certain form of bookkeeping and a certain manner of control, which is not now in existence, for dealing with this form of equipment would make it quite practicable to apply what I think the Government want to apply. I hope that the Government will look into this question of the interchangeability of components so that they can be quite certain they cannot help the industry a little further.

Mr. du Cann

I must press the Financial Secretary just a little further on this matter. He was good enough to instance certain types of aircraft which he correctly described as international, in the sense, as I think he meant it, that they are customarily used for making trips abroad. He quite rightly instanced helicopters and the new type of twin jets, but certain aircraft flying abroad on charter cover types that are well below what I might call as the upper limit set down here. It is perfectly easy to charter very small aircraft of the single-engine and twin-engine type, which are very much below this weight limit.

It is plain from the very fact that the Government have tabled this Amendment that they have no wish to impede in any way, or cause in any way difficulty to an industry that is thoroughly justifiable and desirable in every way in the national interest. I hope that the Financial Secretary will appreciate that we take this matter very seriously, which is why I am now pressing him on the subject. Perhaps, between now and Report, he will look again at the definition with a view to satisfying himself that the situation is as satisfactory as he now appears to think it is. I am quite convinced that the subject merits further investigation.

Mr. MacDermot

I will certainly look at it again but I cannot hold out any great hope because, from the look I have already had, I think that the definition has been drawn up on a generously low weight limit.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacDermot

I beg to move Amendment No. 99, in page 18, line 18, after "goods", to insert "(a)".

Perhaps, Sir Samuel, it might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss also Amendments Nos. 100, 101 and 102.

The Deputy-Chairman

Yes, if that is the wish of the Committee.

Mr. MacDermot

The effect of the Amendments is to allow deferment of the duty point to the point of clearance from abroad in certain cases where Customs are satisfied that the goods, or the major portion of them, after being imported and placed in bonded warehouse in the course of trade or business are subsequently re-exported. The Amendments are put down to meet the difficulties facing the British fur trade and Oriental carpet trade. Those engaged in the business, conduct a trade in this country in which the goods in which they deal are all imported—or virtually all are imported—and a very high percentage of them are re-exported.

It is impossible for these people at the time of importation to specify which particular goods will later be re-exported, and they have represented to us, in a way that we have found compelling, that it would put very great barriers in the way of their trade if they had to pay the charge on the whole of the goods at the time of import, and later claim drawback.

The intention of the Amendments is to make a special exception of that trade for this purpose. It is entirely within the spirit of the provision which is already in subsection (7) of Clause 5, but it would not be practicable for those in the two trades to take advantage of that subsection as drawn.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 18, line 20, at end insert: or (b) are goods which are being warehoused in the course of a trade or business in which the major part of the goods of the kind in question which are imported in the course of the trade or business are re-exported".

In line 21, after "under", insert "paragraph (a) of".

In line 30, at end insert: (3) Goods warehoused without payment of duty under sub-paragraph (1) (b) of this paragraph shall not be removed from warehouse, or otherwise removed from the control of the Commissioners, for home use except after the duty chargeable has been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the Commissioners.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

3.30 a.m.

Mr. MacDermot

I beg to move Amendment No. 103, in page 19, line 30, at the end to insert:

Articles for scientific research, etc.

5.—(1) Articles intended to be used in scientific research, or for a purpose connected with the advancement of any branch of learning or art or with the promotion of any sport, and not intended to be sold, or to be used for any purpose which is substantially a commercial purpose, shall qualify for relief from duty under section 3 of this Act in accordance with this paragraph.

(2) In relation to articles of the description in sub-paragraph (1) above (which is the same as the description in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Import Duties Act 1958 (goods qualifying for exemption under Treasury directions)) section 6 of that Act (power to exempt particular importations of certain goods) shall have effect as if any reference to any import duty (that is any duty under section 1 of that Act) included a reference to duty under section 3 of this Act.

Goods specially designed for the education. scientific or cultural advancement of the blind

6.—(1) The Import Duty Reliefs (No. 4) Order 1958 (goods specially designed for the education, scientific or cultural advancement of the blind) shall apply in relation to duty under section 3 of this Act as it applies in relation to duty under section 1 of the Import Duties Act 1958.

(2) References in section 10 of the Import Duties Act 1958 (offences in connection with applications for relief) to relief under section 5 of that Act, or subsection (1) of that section, shall include references to relief given by virtue of this paragraph.

This is the second of the Amendments to give effect to the undertaking to which I referred last night, and it will extend to the charge the reliefs given to the non-commercial importation of articles used in scientific research or in the advancement of any branch of learning, art or sport and to welfare articles for the blind which are at present contained in the Import Duties Act, 1958.

I explained the purpose of these Amendments yesterday, and unless the Committee wish, I do not propose to take up time in doing it again now.

Mr. du Cann

As I said earlier in the discussion about aircraft, we remember very well the debate that we had last evening on the subject of the Import Duties Act, 1958, and without deploying for a second time all the arguments that were used on that occasion, I would mention that I remember, in particular, we took the view—I am putting it shortly—that it would be right for the kind of exemptions given on the payment of duty under Treasury direction under that Act to be extended exactly to the surcharge. In other words, exemptions would similarly be given from payment of surcharge in those specific categories.

The Financial Secretary made a considered and careful reply, and I said that I was looking forward to reading it in the cold light of day—

Mr. MacDermot

Dawn.

Mr. du Cann

In fact, it is not possible. First, I was not up at dawn, and I dare say that few other Members were. Also the debate took place after half-past ten at night, and we have not seen the HANSARD report.

May I, therefore, ask the Financial Secretary this question? Do I understand that these Amendments are as far as the Government are prepared to go? If that is so, our view is that they ought to go further and I hope the Financial Secretary has that point in mind. I realise that these Amendments which we have lately been discussing were tabled some time ago and it may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman has other Amendments in mind. I hope so.

May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider, and in more detail, at the conclusion of the debate the discussions that we had last night, which we take very seriously? We believe that the points that we put forward were indeed valuable and valid. If the hon. and learned Gentleman feels that he is unwilling or unable to meet us in precisely the way we would wish, I must say that we should wish to take the opportunity of raising the matter again at a later stage.

Mr. MacDermot

Whatever may be the light when the words in our debate do appear in print, I will certainly look at them again. But I should make it clear that we have considered the Fourth Schedule of the 1958 Act carefully in relation to this charge, and our present view is that this is as far as we can go. Unless there is something much more persuasive in what the hon. Gentleman said last night than I appreciated at the time, I cannot hold out any great hopes for him.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.