HC Deb 04 May 1965 vol 711 cc1085-8
5. Sir H. Harrison

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress to date of the export rebate scheme.

Mr. Callaghan

It is a little early for a progress report, but teething troubles are being well overcome, and the scheme now has a substantial number of satisfied claimants. With permission, I will circulate a fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir H. Harrison

Is the Chancellor aware that a large number of manufacturers are disappointed because the export or confirming houses which handle some of their orders are claiming this rebate even if they do not take the risk of financing the goods? If he could make a clear statement to help manufacturers, this may save litigation and be very useful.

Mr. Callaghan

That was the case, but I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that the problems have mostly been ironed out in the last few weeks. I understand that there are very few troubles of this nature now.

Following is the statement: Export rebate is claimable quarterly, and the first claim period ended on 31st January. As claims cart be made up to three months from the end of the period, the closing date for first claims was only a few days ago. Moreover, because of various initial difficulties which had to be resolved, a number of firms, including some very large exporters, have been granted extensions of time and have not yet sent in their first claims. It is, therefore, impossible at this stage to give meaningful figures either of amounts claimed or of amounts paid out, but the claims that had actually been received by 21st April, together with certain large claims known to be outstanding at that date, were estimated to be likely to total some £18 million. The estimated annual rate of rebate payment for the current financial year, for the purposes of the Financial Statement, 1965–66, was £84 million, and even if it turns out that the first quarter's claims do not quite come up to that rate, there seems to be every prospect that, as exporters become increasingly aware of the benefits of the scheme, the figure for the year as a whole will not be significantly below the estimate. The total number of potential claimants is estimated at between 10,000 and 15,000. There were some initial uncertainties about the party entitled to claim rebate in certain types of transactions, particularly those involving confirming houses; these have now been largely resolved. Some export transactions are in their nature very complex and, as would he expected with any new scheme, many detailed points connected with the first quarter's claims are at present being discussed between the Customs and Excise and individual firms. None appears to be insoluble, and most will be settled once and for all by the discussions now going on, so that a regular and workable basis of claim will he established for the future. Some relaxations in the claim procedures have already been introduced, and the Customs is always ready to consider further suggestions by the exporters concerned for making the scheme work as smoothly and conveniently as possible.
27. Mr. Barnett

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will simplify the working of the export rebate scheme by introducing one standard percentage for all classes of goods.

Mr. MacDermot

No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary's Answer of 12th March to his Questions about the rates of export rebate for textiles.

Mr. Barnett

Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that, as it takes so long for the small exporter and the Purchase Tax officer to check an enormous number of schedules and categories of one shipment, or even one bale, it would help considerably if the system were simplified, and indeed it would be just as fair to have an overall percentage throughout?

Mr. MacDermot

I cannot agree that it would be just as fair. It would mean in some cases that some exporters would be receiving a rebate far in excess of their entitlement, and in other cases far less. But in any event it would be impossible because it would be wholly unacceptable internationally. This rebate is justified only because it is calculated on the basis of the actual taxes which are incurred by the particular industries.

Mr. Fell

Is the rebate subject to tax?

Mr. MacDermot

That is the subject of a separate Question.

Mr. Stainton

Is a compromise possible here? Is it possible to have a flat rate for an industry, or a sector of an industry? I think that if we could achieve this it would go a long way to meeting the question at the back of the hon. Gentleman's mind.

Mr. MacDermot

That is the way in which the rebate is calculated. It is done by industries.

Later—

Mr. Fell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order regarding a supplementary question which, you may recall, I asked to Question No. 27. It was a very simple supplementary question. I asked whether the rebate was subject to tax. I was informed by the Financial Secretary that he would refrain from answering the supplementary question as there was another Question on the Order Paper about it. I have not had very long to look, but I have tried to ascertain whether there was another Question and I cannot see one. Has one any protection—

Mr. Speaker

Order. One can be as wrong as anybody else, but sitting here listening, my recollection is that the Minister said it was a different question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—the reason why I think I heard that was I was puzzling about the proposition. In any event, I am afraid that I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot help him.

Mr. Fell

Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. On the assumption that every word the hon. Gentleman says is quite right and that the Minister was forecasting a non-existing Question, I still could not help him. I am sorry.

Mr. Fell

Further to that point of order, may I simply ask you, Mr. Speaker, in this sort of case, supposing I was absolutely right and there happened to be no Question on the Order Paper about it, what sort of protection a back bench Member gets against a Minister who misleads a back bench Member?

Mr. Speaker

Of course, if the Minister were deliberately misleading the House, the hon. Member could put down an appropriate Motion and ask for time to discuss it. That would not give me any chance to help him in those circumstances.