The enormous increase in the Beer Duty should not be allowed to pass without any reference being made to it at this stage of our deliberations on the Finance Bill. In other times, no doubt, we would have had a great discussion on these Clauses in regard to the relative differences between direct and indirect taxation, but we recognise the position of the Government, and that they are making terrific increases in taxation with a view to closing the inflationary gap, to which so much reference has been made. While we do not propose to delay the Committee on this Clause, or to divide against it, we ought to make it clear that in our view, this increase is only necessary because of the bad financial and economic policy of the Government, and each time anyone drinks a glass of beer at the enhanced price he should be reminded where the responsibility lies for the increased price, always excepting those who are teetotallers who prefer water the price of which has not been increased. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has."] Not by this Budget.

It is timely to remind the Committee of the enormous contribution which is now being made to our finances by this section of the community, generally described nowadays as the "lower income groups," which both they and others recognise better as being the working man whe enjoys a glass of beer. In the Budget, the total taxation on beer is estimated at the colossal sum of £260 million. This Budget increases that amount by £10 million for the rest of the year, making an estimated total of £270 million for this year, and, unless there is to be any change, a total of £295 million for next year.

This is a tremendous sum to exact from those who find some solace in an occasional half pint of beer in "the local." The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be able to give an assurance on behalf of the Government that there will be the beer to drink, if there is to be this increased price, because, in spite of the high taxation last year, beer was apt to run out during the summer harvest and most of the festive seasons. On many occasions there have been real shortages in different parts of the country, particularly at harvest time, which is a matter of some consequence in the countryside.

It ought to run out.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should be the last person to say that, because he is looking for revenue, and if the beer runs out, his revenue drops, unless there are more barrels to be opened. In spite of the levity, which I can appreciate, it is stating the obvious to point out that the amount of taxation to be raised depends upon how much beer is available, and that depends on how much raw materials, apart from water, the Ministry of Food are prepared to make available. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give us an assurance that beer will be available, even at these high prices, for those who wish to pay this contribution to our national difficulties.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a Question on 19th November, said that for a pint of beer at the present reduced average strength of beer, the duty amounted to 8d., and the cost of the raw materials and all the rest of it was covered by the small difference between 8d. and whatever might be the total charge, according to the quality of the beer. As far as I can see, the Clause and the Schedule are in the common form when there is to be an increase in this type of taxation. If there is any change, I am sure that the Financial Secretary will tell us about it.

This is a tremendous imposition upon the working people to whom beer is a solace, encouragement in their labours, or provides a pleasurable means of meeting their friends, quite apart from the drink aspect, because in these days the beer is very weak, and therefore it hardly comes into the picture. This is an enormous sum to raise from this section of the community, but, from the point of view of checking inflation the right hon. and learned Gentleman is probably right in his contention that there is some purchasing power which can be mopped up without necessarily creating very great hardship, because, like all these indirect taxes, it is left to the option of the individual whether or not he pays the tax. It should be noted that, in this year of grace, no less than £270 million is to be raised from our fellow countrymen who choose to drink beer.

All I ask is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government will do their part, and if they want to get this revenue, they will see that the beer is available. There should not be these shortages, not only because of the inconvenience caused to potential customers, but because of the hardship caused to publicans who frequently by law have to keep their establishments open in spite of the fact that they have nothing to sell. We shall let this Clause go through because we consider this is one of the important aspects of the economic problem the Government have put before the Committee, but we must again remind everyone concerned that if it had not been for the folly of the Government and the incompetent handling of our finances by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor, none of these things would have been necessary. It is due entirely to the Government that it has been found necessary to do this at all, and I hope that everyone will always remember that.

I wish to declare to the Committee that I have no direct interest in this matter, because I do not happen to be a consumer of this commodity. Perhaps I may gain some small credit for that with the hon. Member opposite who may follow me. I am not asking the Treasury to look at this matter solely from the agricultural point of view, which has already been referred to by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). This increase is a very heavy burden on certain sections of the community, and it can have a very bad effect on production in the case of the heavy industries, such as steel, shipping, mining and particularly quarrying in my particular area. These workers, with few exceptions, look forward to having their beer fairly regularly.

As we are accepting this tax unwillingly, knowing that we cannot get out of it, I would ask the Government to see that in future there is a reasonably plentiful supply of beer for those engaged in heavy industries as well as agriculture. I would like to make a special appeal to the Government to see that more beer is available in our seaports, not only at great ports like Liverpool, but the smaller ones, particularly the naval ports. Often sailors come back to shore after a very long time at sea, during which they have not had any beer in England. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the beer on board?"] They do not get so much there as they ought to be allowed, and, in any case, no sailor would ever want to take an unfair share of beer. As we are being asked to pay a very much heavier tax, and as the Government are doing so well out of the beer drinker, I am asking that there should be adequate supplies of beer.

I would like to put this point of view from another angle. We are being told by the Government to encourage visitors from abroad. Besides such small resorts as Brighton and places in Scotland, there are the leading health resorts, such as Torquay and Paignton, to which Members opposite go and afterwards say that they have never had a better time in their lives. I am asking that during the summer season especially, when these places have so many visitors, there should be an adequate supply of beer. It is not a good thing to be short of beer when there are visitors from abroad. It is not a good thing, if there is an American ship lying off Torbay, and their sailors come ashore, to be told that all the beer has been sold. Further, an adequate supply of beer at these resorts enables our own people to build up their strength while on holiday, and go back to work rejuvenated. That is the main object of holidays with pay. Those who drink beer—and, as I have said, I am not among them; I am putting a completely disinterested point of view—ought to be able to have a sufficient supply of beer.

I do not wish to take up a lot of time on this matter, because I realise I have not the sympathy of the plutocrats sitting opposite. I am appealing as a representative of ordinary people, working men and women, that they should be allowed to enjoy one of the luxuries of life. The Treasury are making people pay through the nose for this luxury—though it is not a luxury to many, but a necessity. It is one of the few things which people have left to them today at a time when the country is suffering severely from the actions of this Government. I believe that I am about to be supported by one of the strongest supporters of the Government, the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson). I am sure he will join with me in urging that beer, which cannot be called anything but a teetotal drink nowadays, should be supplied to the people of this country in adequate quantities. I hope that the Treasury representative will say, in reply, that he will put pressure on to his partners in the Government to see that adequate supplies of beer are provided, especially for the West Country.

I am very glad to support the Government and their proposals in this Clause. I gather, from what the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Capt. Crookshank) said, that the Opposition will support the Government as well; at any rate, by their acquiescence if there is no Division. The Opposition have managed to find an opportunity to put forward a good many inconsequential statements about this increased beer tax. It was suggested that there would be a heavy burden on the working classes as the result of this increase and, at the same time, that there should be a plentiful supply of beer. I support the Government because their aim is to attempt, by a process of taxation, to limit what we cannot afford to have today. They are doing with beer what they have attempted to do with tobacco. I must point out, however, that if taxation is the only thing which the Government can rely on they are not likely to secure the aim they have in view.

In the last few years, while taxation on beer has been heavy, supplies have become more and more plentiful with every increase in that taxation——

How does my hon. Friend know?

I can tell from the published figures. I do not drink beer myself, but there are means of finding out how much other people drink. In 1938, the total consumption of beer was 24 million barrels. Consumption advanced steadily, and in the following year the total was 25 million barrels. By the middle of the war the figure was 29 million, at the end of the war 31 million, and it is now practically 32 million. I know that someone will say that the water put into it has added to the barrel-age, but that cannot be substantiated.

4.0 p.m.

There has been, in addition to the inclusion of water, a considerable increase in the commodities for the making of beer, which this country badly needs in other directions. This is particularly so with regard to sugar. Up to recently, when the Government made their decision about the reduction of sugar, the amount which the brewers were using was nearly the same as at the beginning of the war. I suggest to the Government that if their intention with regard to beer is the same as it was stated to be with regard to tobacco, to reduce the amount at the time of the present crisis, so that there shall not be wasted in the manufacture of beer what is badly needed in food and by way of provender for cattle, they will not be able to rely on the process of taxation alone. I agree that they must use the tax instrument to whatever extent is possible, but there still remains this dreadful question of wastage of absolute necessities as a result of continuing to brew beer to the present extent.

On behalf of the sailors, who, according to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), must have plentiful supplies of beer, and on behalf of the steel smelters, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there are many steel smelters today who have discovered, what the miners discovered earlier, that it is better from the point of view of their own safety—whatever it may be with regard to efficiency—to keep work in the coalmines and the supply of beer entirely separate. It is a law today that liquor, like matches, may not be taken into a coalmine. For people engaged on steel smelting, I admit that the temptation must be very great, on account of the onerous nature of the jobs which they have to do, to turn to anything in the drink form which will help them to face up to their work; but beer is not really an aid to their work. Indeed, the Royal Commission dealing with this question of beer, in its report in 1929, explicitly stated that, whatever other merits it may have, it should not be regarded in that light.

I suggest to hon. Members opposite, and, perhaps, to some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who are unduly impressed by the experiences of the last war, when in a number of towns there was an agitation because beer supplies became short, that we are not in that position today. In 1917 and 1918, during the first European war, resentment was expressed that the supplies of beer under the operation of the Liquor Control Board in the time of Mr. Lloyd George's Government were intended to fall to 10 million barrels in the year. It never, however, reached that figure. It actually reached between 15 million and 16 million barrels, and it was at that time of shortage in supply that public agitation took place, which is so much in the memories of people today who protest about the nature of the supply of beer. We are not in that position at all.

I beg of the Government to proceed with this tax and any other measures which they may consider necessary to do the job which they have set out to do. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, when he talks about the economic problem, will support the Government in continuing their work along these lines. I am very glad to be able to support the Government in the proposal which they make.

The Committee has listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson). I am sure that, whatever our attitude towards drinking beer, we all have a deep sympathy for his sincerity, and for that of all other hon. Members who have addressed the Committee in similar terms. I do not, however, think that now is the opportunity to discuss the merits or demerits of abstention. The question before the Committee is the merits of the Clause. I think that the hon. Member for West Ealing drew a red herring across the purpose of this Clause. It is to raise £35 million in a full year from beer drinkers who, in the main, are working people. On average, this works out, in my calculation, at about 1s. per week per beer drinker. Some people may say that that is not much, but for the working man today, who cannot find it possible to make ends meet, it is a lot.

No matter what we think on this side about the sincerity of the views held by hon. Members on the other side, the fact is that this is a burden on the working people. That much has to be acknowledged. I regret that the Government have brought in this Clause in their Supplementary Budget, because it is a burden on the workers and, at the same time, as pointed out from all sources and in papers representing all parties, the supplementary Budget as a whole has not really made any large contribution to closing the inflationary gap. Therefore, although I do not expect the Government to withdraw this Clause because the feeling of the House is in support of it, I personally regret that it has been introduced.

I intervene now because I am anxious that the Financial Secretary should reply to one aspect of the Debate. I was extremely interested in the short speech of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and his very decided view that this tax constitutes a burden on the working-class. I ventured to suggest that in my speech on the Budget Resolution, and I was immediately contradicted by the hon. Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce), who speaks on all these matters with such authority—an authority added to by the position which he occupies in the House on the bench opposite at the head of the queue. Incidentally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) on making an unexpected appearance in that position. I only hope that it is significant. The hon. Member for North Portsmouth denied my suggestion at once, and said that it constituted no burden at all. I will leave it to the two hon. Members to fight it out between themselves.

The hon. Member for West Ealing approached this matter largely from the moral aspect which is a different angle from the one which I wish to pursue, but he posed the question whether this extra taxation was intended to reduce the consumption of beer.. That is a question to which the right hon. Gentleman ought to reply. We support this new taxation, burdensome though we think it is, because we believe it to be one of the ways of combating inflation, but a tax of this kind is only operative in mopping up purchasing power and combating the vast amount of money in circulation if the supplies upon which it is imposed are available. It obviously has no effect whatsoever in reducing the amount of money available if, pro tanto, the amount of beer is reduced, and, therefore, the total expenditure on beer, including the new tax, is the same as it was before. There is a great fallacy in the hon. Member for West Ealing comparing this with the Tobacco Duty, which is set on an entirely different footing. There the idea was not to combat inflation, but to reduce the amount of tobacco imported from abroad, so that it was a tax introduced for a wholly different purpose.

It has become of great importance that the right hon. Gentleman should tell us what is in the Government's mind as to the operation of this tax. Is it their view that it is intended to reduce the consumption of beer which possibly would result in a trivial reduction in the materials which are used, or is it their intention to use sales of beer as a means of mopping up purchasing power which otherwise would be diverted into other channels? That really is fundamental to the whole of the economic conception lying behind the new tax proposed in this Bill. I look forward to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, because I think this afternoon he will be in particularly good form. After all, only a short time ago he listened to the pleasant announcement that tomorrow he will have a little baby brother or possibly a little baby sister. I can only assure him that this Benjamin will not in any way supplant the right hon. Gentleman in the affection which the House has towards him.

I should like to say one word with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). I do not know whether my arithmetic is wrong or whether his is wrong, but he said that a penny on a pint of beer was going to mean a shilling on a working class home each week.

What I said was that in my calculation the increased taxation amounting to £35 million would be roughly equivalent to one shilling per beer drinker per week—not per home but per drinker. I am sure that in the home of the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) there is no beer drinker.

I thought the hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to protect the beer drinkers, who, as he said, are the working class of this country. The other day those of us who thought that the food subsidies might be looked at again were accused of making an attack on the working classes, because they represent 125. 6d. a week in a four-member family, but here this additional tax, according to the hon. Member for Mile End, will mean a cost to the working people per drinker of about 12s. to 14s. a week. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then I can only assume that my arithmetic has been wrong, and so I will resume my seat.

First may I say in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) that this Clause is in common form, and there is nothing in it which is not plain to previous and distinguished holders of the office which I have the honour to occupy. I agree that this is a very heavy tax, and, taken with the impositions which have been placed on beer before, the amount now to be taken out of the pockets of those who drink beer is very considerable. As I sat listening to the Debate I went back over the figures for previous years, and the Committee might like to be reminded that in August, 1914, the duty on beer was no more than 7s. 9d. a standard barrel. It is today 159s. 9d. a bulk barrel, apart from the surtax that can be levied for higher strengths. That is an enormous increase and it is true we have in this Budget put an additional duty of 19s. 1½d. on the bulk barrel of 36 gallons.

This is by no means the highest single increase that has been placed on beer. In September, 1939, the duty was doubled from 24s. to 48s. and the next April it was increased again to 65s., a rise of no less than £2 1s. in about six months. It is true that that occurred during the war, and further increases were made as the war proceeded, but I would remind the Committee that no increase in the duty on beer has been proposed by any Chancellor of the Exchequer since April, 1944. As other things have gone up and as Purchase Tax has been very steeply increased on so many articles of consumption, it is not unreasonable that something should be done about beer in our present general mopping up process. On the ordinary pint of beer of average strength, the increase works out at something just under 1d. per pint. It has been agreed by the Brewers' Society that the difference between one penny and the actual amount of the new increase will go to the publican, who it is realised, has considerable overheads and has, in the past at any rate, been short of supplies. Therefore, what is called a turn of 1s. 4d. on the barrel will be passed on to the retailer, with the agreement of the brewers.

As to whether supplies can be kept going it is not for me to say. As the right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough very properly said, that is more a matter for the Minister of Food than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All I can say is that the expected yield during this year is practically the same as this tax yielded during the last financial year. The assumption from this is that it is expected that supplies will be running more or less as they ran last year, that is at the rate of about 30 million bulk barrels a year. I should add that it is quite impossible in my capacity either to prophesy or to give an assurance. It is only the Minister of Food who can speak in regard to the materials for the making of beer during the coming months, but it is possible that even he may not know at this juncture. None of us can see what changed circumstances there may be. So far as we know and so far as the Ministry can be any judge, it looks as though the amount that will be manufactured will be about as much as was manufactured during the previous year. As I say, I can give no assurance on that point, and what I am now saying may turn out to be wrong.

I was asked by the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) to reply to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) and to give some indication of whether the tax increase was intended to lower the consumption of this beverage or to mop up excess purchasing power and prevent an increased risk of inflation. The short answer is that this is one of the ways devised by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer for preventing the inflationary pressure becoming too great. The increased duty is not intended in itself to reduce the consumption of beer. If it were, the increase would have had to be a great deal bigger. So far as I know, those who like beer are hardly likely to be deterred by an increase of a penny on the pint on average strength beer. The Tobacco Duty was, of course, increased to a considerable degree for the purpose of reducing consumption. Although it is obviously desirable that people should not drink too much beer and that they should keep their appetite within bounds, nevertheless, we are not here legislating for that sort of thing.

This is one way of mopping up the present excess of purchasing power and we feel that we are levying a not unreasonable increased duty on those who drink beer in order to tax them just as we tax those who buy other consumable goods and spend their money in other ways. We are grateful to the Committee for realising that this clause is necessary and to the Opposition for not taking it to a Division.

The Committee as a whole have accepted this proposal to raise a vast sum of money, and the only request that has been made is that the supply should be adequate. Whether that is possible or not I do not know, but that is the Committee's request. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that he could not guarantee that but that it was a matter for the Ministry of Food. I shall not go into this in detail, because many of us realise the difficulty of his position, but when the Committee on a Clause such as this, which places a vast burden on the community, asks for a guarantee before money is voted, it is a very bad precedent if we are given absolutely no assurance that the matter will be looked into by the appropriate Minister. If we are to have any power whatever over finance, it is no good making our complaint and then whatever happens voting for the proposals and not protesting very strongly when the Government show absolutely no inclination to meet the difficulties of the ordinary taxpayers.

I do not want to repeat the Debate which has just taken place, nor to go into the actual merits of this case. I am a distiller myself and I do not wish to raise my own personal interests in the Committee. As a consumer of spirits I shall accept this increase in price, always bearing in mind that the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day said that the purpose of the Budget was,

"… to reduce the inflationary pressure consequent upon the economic action which is being taken by the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 1917.]

That seems to put it quite bluntly that they have got us into a mess and this is how they are trying to get out of it. I now have a technical question which may be of general interest. What considerations governed the exact sums by which the Spirit Duty has been raised?

I have tried to find some parallel between the figures in this Budget and the amounts by which the duty has been raised on previous occasions, but I cannot find any relationship between them. No relationship may be intended, but as a matter of interest, I would like to know upon what calculations and considerations these figures were based.

Apart from that, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell my hon. Friend, it must here again be noted how great a contribution is being made by this sector of the community, which is not exactly the same as the last. The price of spirits is so high that I do not think that very many of the lower income tax groups, alias the working class people, can use them, but, of course, it is true that the higher the duty on spirits becomes, the greater the hardship on certain people who have to have spirits for reasons of health. That applies in all sections of the community. There are many doctors who prescribe—rightly or wrongly, I do not know, because I am not a doctor—that in certain cases small quantities of spirits should be available. It is very hard upon those people that what is prescribed to them for health reasons is so very expensive.

Here again, the figures are very large. In the original Budget £70 million were to be raised from these duties. The emergency Budget now brings that figure up to £75,500,000 this year and £84,500,000 next year, a very large sum, particularly when one bears in mind the information which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on 19th November that, taking the price of a bottle of whisky at 30s., no less than 22s. 3d. of that was duty. That is an enormous impost. We are driven to accept this as one of what the right hon Gentleman the other day called the sandbags against the inflationary pressure and as being, in the considered view of the Government, one of the things which ought to be done, but we cannot help once again pointing out that none of this would have been necessary had there been a better and wiser financial and economic policy on the part of the Government.

The only question that needs an answer is that put by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). He asked how the amount of 33s. 4d. a proof gallon by which this tax has been increased this time had been arrived at. It was thought that this was a reasonable figure in itself, and that it would make the price of a bottle of whisky something like 30s. As those who have followed these matters will have noticed, up to now the duty has broken itself up to odd halfpennies. In the figure now given we have got away from that. Taking, as we always do, the basis that the duty should relate to the circumstances of the time, we thought that reasonable, and it made the amount a round figure. As the Committee know, the distillers have not made the price of a bottle of whisky 30s., but have increased it to 31s. That is for reasons of their own and is not because of the extra duty.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific and say whether this increased duty and the proposed price for a bottle of spirits will mean that (a) the distiller and (b) the retailer will get more than at present?

That is not for us to decide. The price of a bottle of whisky is not fixed by the Treasury, but by the distillers. They decide what the consumer will pay and make their price accordingly. Therefore, in that sense we do not come into it. We come into it only in so far as we levy a duty on spirits.

I referred to the proposed price of 31s. On that basis, what is the answer to my question?

If I understand the hon. Gentleman aright, he wants to know why 31s. was fixed—

No. What I asked was whether the proposed retail price of 31s. would give a larger return (a) to the distiller and (b) to the retailer.

I understand that the answer is "Yes" and that that is why the amount has been increased. It has gone up by more than the immediate increase in the duty, because distillers feel that prices are rising, that their costs are greater and that they must, in fairness to the retailers with whom they do business, make this extra charge. I am sorry that did not quite follow what the hon. Gentleman said earlier.

I am not a whisky distiller so I cannot speak from first-hand knowledge in that respect, but the Committee must be aware that there is a terrible temptation to any producer of whisky to sell it in the black market and that the whisky distillers of this country have resisted that temptation.

indicated assent.

They have not profiteered. So far as the gin distillers are concerned, the wholesale price of gin has gone up 1s. 4d. per dozen bottles, over and above this increase in the duty, that is, under 1½d., actually 1⅔ of a penny per bottle. That increase is more than accounted for by the extra cost of bottling materials since the duty was last raised in 1943. The industry can be completely acquitted of any attempt to profiteer. In fact, I think they are one of the most admirable sections of the community. If there is any discrepancy it is in the course of distribution, by retailers and people like that, whose overheads have gone up out of proportion to the quantity of the goods they sell, and because of the great restriction of the goods.

I was rather disappointed to hear the Financial Secretary say that the only point to which he had to reply was one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). I was hoping we would hear something in reply to the speech made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) who produced arguments of very great importance about the effect of the increased duty upon people who take spirits on medical grounds. I understood the Financial Secretary to say that the figure of the new duty had been fixed largely with the desire to get rid of the ha'pence and to keep to nice round figures, by taking the duty up 6d. or 1s. at a time. That may be more convenient, but it is a very unsound theory to come from the Treasury. The steep steps which we are now experiencing in these duties mean that spirits such as whisky and brandy have been placed out of the reach altogether of what we call the lower income groups, despite the fact that many people in those groups may be prescribed whisky or brandy by their doctors as a stimulant in illness.

I wonder what has become of the Government's slogan of fair shares for all. Here are these spirits placed entirely out of the reach of very large sections of the community. The experts of the right hon. and learned Gentleman might go into this matter again with very much the same motive as in the case of the increased Tobacco Duty last April. Here is a problem for the acute brains of the Treasury, and I am certain they can solve it. If they cannot, then the new Chancellor of the Exchequer can, because he is very competent at statistics.

Why could not old age pensioners and sick people, upon production of a proper medical certificate, have a supply of spirits at the pre-Budget level, or even below it? Even the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he left us in a cloud of smoke, succeeded in settling a problem for old age pensioners in a similar case. I ask the Government to look at the matter again. There is plenty of time. There will be the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Bill, and then another place. There will be plenty of opportunity. I make this suggestion not in order to embarrass the right hon. and learned Gentleman but as a serious point. Where a medical certificate can be produced on behalf of an old age pensioner or a person similarly circumstanced, a concession might be made by which they would not be called upon to pay the extra duty.

The hon. and gallant Member may remember a lot of difficulty which arose in regard to prescriptions in the United States of America, when there were certain prohibitions, and the legislation which ensued upon it. I do not think it would be wise for us to embark upon it in this country.

That is a most alarming intervention by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Are we now peeping into the future? Are we to find ourselves saddled with prohibition or something like that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. It is no use the right hon. and learned Gentleman citing to us what happened under prohibition when we live in a country where prohibition does not exist. I know there are difficulties in the matter, and that they can be accentuated where there is complete prohibition because of the most ingenious methods which have been devised, but there is no prohibition in this country. We are still permitted to drink, if we can afford to do so. All we ask is that certain sections of the community should be enabled to obtain those spirits at a lower figure. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is as capable as was his predecessor of getting round the difficulties and of allowing the old people to have their liquor at a more reasonable price. Prohibition does not enter into it, unless we are getting a peep into the future.

The Clause introduces a substantial change into once branch of excise practice. The Financial Secretary will no doubt recollect that when he spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill he said:

"For the first time in history, British wines are to be divided into two groups, light and heavy. No doubt there will be a discussion of this arrangement when we reach the Committee stage, and that criticism will be levelled at the fact that this has been done for the first time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 1816.]

The right hon. Gentleman was wholly right when he invited attention to the fact that the Clause introduces a change into the system of levying Excise Duty upon British manufactured wines. The change is that in future British wines shall, for excise purposes, be divided into two categories and that the dividing line shall be the strength 27 degrees. The difficulty arising from the change is the matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I am advised that the great bulk of British wines is in the category from 27 to 29 degrees of strength. That is to say, they are just over the border into the heavier category. The greater part of the output of British wines, therefore, suffers the increased Excise Duty without going very far into the heavier category. I believe that the change and the selection of the figure 27 for the line of demarcation was intended to bring the position in respect of British wines into a position parallel to that of Empire wines. In the case of Empire wines there are already two categories, and have been for a good many years, with the line of demarcation at 27.

That is, on the face of it, a not unreasonable change, but there is a factor which makes it rather less reasonable than it would first appear. It is that over a number of years, under an excise regulation whose number I cannot recollect, Empire wines imported under this scheme, with a demarcation line of 27, have had the valuable privilege of permission to fortify—that is, raise the strength—in bond by the addition of duty free spirit which has been, and is, very valuable to them. British wines have not that privilege, and therefore it seems unfair that if, on the one hand, British wines are to be placed in the same position as Empire wines, they should not at the same time be given the privilege of fortification in bond. At the moment they are getting the worst of both worlds—they are losing the advantage they had previously, without being given any compensation such as, for example, a share in the privilege of fortification in bond.

In those circumstances it seems a curious moment to handicap a home product, which involves much less strain on the resources of foreign currency than any imported products can do, and I wonder if this aspect of the matter was overlooked when this change was made. I would be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider in a dispassionate and reasonable frame of mind the point I have put, that is, that British wines have been put in the same position as Empire wines, while being denied the valuable privilege which Empire wines are enjoying.

I think I can give this assurance, on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend, that he will look at this matter between now and next April and consider what should be done, if anything, to alter these proposals which may possibly become law in a week or two. It is true that this is the first time that this differentiation between light and heavy has been applied to British wines, though it has been applied to Empire wines for some time. Empire wines have been allowed, in addition, to fortify the spirit while only paying the same duty as on wine. That will not apply to British wines, and the British wine industry is afraid that it may affect their industry in the coming months. We recognise all that, and I have the authority of my right hon. and learned Friend to say that in the intervening months between now and the next Budget he will watch this and, if it is essential to do something in order to be just to the British wine industry, he will certainly take whatever course is desirable.

Though, of course, we are most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for telling us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at this matter, it seems rather hard that we should have to wait until next April for the result of this examination because, as I understand this, it is to come into effect forthwith. I should have thought we would not be going too far in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at it before the Report stage of this Bill. After all, the Report stage is next week, and it would not be a big matter for the Board of Customs to have some discussions on this matter. It would be more satisfactory if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could assure us that the matter will be dealt with now, and not next April.

I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to agree to that course. I cannot think there is any precedent on the Committee stage of a Finance Bill, when a prima facie case for an Amendment has been made out, for the Government to say that they will wait three or four months before considering it. Why not look into this before the Report stage next week? The wine manufacturers concerned are being subjected to treatment which they think is unfair and shows bias against them, and it will be serious if they have to suffer this unfair burden for another four or five months. I cannot help thinking that the Financial Secretary meant to say "before the Report stage," and I hope he will now undertake so to consider it.

The right hon. Gentleman has told the Committee that he is aware that the industry in question is disturbed about this. What is the point of introducing this new system with the knowledge that it may only be operative for a maximum of five months? If in April, when the next Budget comes along, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has thought again and, after consultation with the industry, has come to the conclusion that something on the lines of this Amendment should be accepted, surely the comparatively trivial amount of money which the Treasury will receive as a result of not accepting this Amendment now is not worth while?

May I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that there is no Amendment before the Committee? I have not selected the Amendment. The Question is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

I am sorry, Major Milner, I had overlooked that minor point. The argument upon the Clause standing part has largely been directed towards the point of an Amendment which has not been called. I would urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider what would be the financial advantages to the Treasury in putting into operation the Clause as it now stands for a period of four or five months, if he were to decide at the end of that time to introduce into the next Budget an Amendment which would meet the point raised by my hon. Friend.

May I make quite clear what is in the mind of my right hon. and learned Friend? If, by my phrasing, I gave the Committee to understand that I was, on his behalf, practically undertaking that he would do something to bring the British wine industry into line with the wine industries of other countries, particularly those of the Empire, I am sorry, for I did not intend anything of the kind. All I intended to say, and all that I will say, is that this division between light and heavy is something new so far as the British industry is concerned. It is therefore, a step in the dark. As has been said, the British industry is perturbed about it, and we must see whether the fears they have expressed eventuate. We do not know that they will. We think that six months is not a long time, but it is certainly long enough to give my right hon. and learned Friend a chance to see whether there is something in the fears expressed to us at the Treasury, and by certain hon. Members opposite. It is a reasonable attitude to take in the circumstances.

I would add that about 80 per cent. of the product of the British wine industry is composed of port and sherry types, which are heavy wines. If we take into account that the duty is the same as on Empire wines—10d. and 1s. 8d. respectively—it is not a great increase and we think they will not be ruined. In fact, it may well he that, between now and April, they will find a good deal to be said for this change. I have not gone into this for obvious reasons. However, there is a case to be made for it.

May I urge my right hon. and learned Friend not to take this too seriously, but to bear in mind the respective influence on the palate of the consumer of an Empire or foreign wine made from fresh grapes on the spot, and of a wine which is certainly not made from fresh grapes in this country?

I hope we shall not allow the intervention of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) to deflect us into the pleasant paths of wine connoisseurship from what we are discussing, namely, the effect of this duty on a not unimportant section of British industry. I was rather disconcerted by the second reply of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He told us that there was a case for the duty, but, because by next April his right hon. and learned Friend may or may not have looked at the matter again, he did not think it worth while at this moment to tell us what the case is. I do not think the Committee can be satisfied with that. I do not pretend to understand the technicalities of the case, but we are informed that the British wine industry is seriously perturbed about the repercussions on that industry, and we are entitled to a definite statement by the Government of the reasons for the tax, and why they think this new step in the dark, as the Financial Secretary called it, is not likely to be injurious to the trade. It had not been our original intention to divide against this small measure, but, unless we can be given

I was a little disquieted by the second intervention of the Financial Secretary. He gave me the impression that he did not really understand the problem. I think he said that the bulk of British wines—he used the expression 80 per cent.—were heavy stuff, but I am advised that that is quite wrong, and that the greater part of the production is in the 27–29 group. That is just inside the heavy category, and is the category most hit by this duty. The right hon. Gentleman did not touch on the second argument, that if this 27 line of demarcation is to be introduced, the alternative possibility of giving to the-home product the privilege of duty free fortification in bond already enjoyed by Empire wines should be considered. He did not address his mind to that. All he said was that there was an argument for the change, an argument of which he was aware, but which, for some reason or other, he was not prepared to give to the Committee.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out "one-third," and insert "one-quarter."

On the previous Clause the Financial Secretary described the Government's intention as a general mopping up process. The question why the Purchase Tax on necessities has increased by 100 per cent. requires an explanation. If the purpose of this tax is to bring in extra revenue, I do not think the Committee would like to extract that revenue from the poorer section of the population. If, on the other hand, the purpose is to prevent unnecessary spending, one would expect that the highest increase would have gone on the luxuries in order to stop people wasting their money. The Committee will probably recollect the origin of the Purchase Tax. It was introduced in 1940, with a basic rate of 33⅓ per cent. and a reduced rate of exactly half. Superimposed on it later we had the higher rate in respect of luxuries, and the intermediate rate which was graded so that it was twice the basic rate. The higher rate was three times the basic rate.

The former Chancellor in introducing this Budget has upset that ratio completely. He has doubled the tax on the reduced rate in respect of the necessaries of life. He has increased the tax by 50 per cent. on the basic rate, by 12½ per cent. on the intermediate rate and by only 25 per cent. on the higher rate in respect of luxuries. I submit that that is an unfortunate state of affairs, and, therefore, I am moving this Amendment to bring the reduced rate—that is the tax on the necessaries of life—to 25 per cent., so that it shall have the same proportionate increase as the increase on the remainder. I appreciate that according to an answer which I received yesterday from the Financial Secretary, there will be a loss to the Revenue in the current financial year of £2 million, and an estimated loss of £16 million in the succeeding financial year. It is not open to me as a Private Member to make any suggestions as to how that position should be redressed, but it is quite clear that if it is important to obtain revenue, that redress should be obtained from taxation on luxury goods rather than on necessities.

I would remind the Committee of the types of articles which come under this grouping of the reduced rates. They include clothes; rubber boots for children as well as for grown ups, which is an important matter in rural districts; Thermos flasks; holloware; drugs and medicines; and wallpaper. Those articles are certainly indispensable. One cannot suddenly say, "I am going to try to save and not wear any clothes," or that one will do wallpaper drugs and medicines or even wallpaper in the house. Nobody can suggest that there should be no expenditure on those items at the present time. Therefore, I hope the Chancellor will look with a friendly eye on this Amendment, which is not intended as a wrecking Amendment, but is intended to improve the financial measures which he has adopted,

I wish the Financial Secretary were present, because I feel sure that he at least would be sympathetic. When the Finance Bill was adopted in 1940, and the Minister of Transport of the present Government described it as unfair, undemocratic and vicious in its impact on prices and wages, the Financial Secretary voted against the reduced rate of Purchase Tax, because in his view it inflicted too great a burden on the poorer people. I do not believe that in this short space of seven years there can be a great change in the Financial Secretary's opinion. Perhaps that is the reason why he is not present on the Treasury Bench. I would like to give an illustration, taking a guinea's worth of goods in the four Budget groups. The price of the necessities of life has gone up by 3s. in the guinea. The price of articles in the basic group, like hats, gloves and toys, is going up by 2s. 7¼d. in the guinea. The price of articles in the intermediate group, such as electric heaters and mirrors, is going up by is. o¼d. in the guinea; and the price of luxuries, like cosmetics and jewellery, is going up by 2s. 7¼d. in the guinea.

I submit that these figures alone show that there is something wrong with the Chancellor's proposals as they are at present drafted. We propose that these necessities of life should only go up by is. 6d. instead of 3s. They will then be at a lower rate than cosmetics and jewellery, which is only just at the present time. I ask Members of all parties to support me in this appeal. We are facing a hard winter, and we should not, therefore, make the necessities of life even harder to obtain than they will, of necessity, be during this winter. Unless this Amendment is carried, there will be a heavy increased burden on the poorer section of the community.

I think that the figures which have been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who so ably moved this Amendment, show that due thought has not been given to the effect of this increase in Purchase Tax. As he rightly pointed out, the large percentage rise will weigh on the lower range of incomes, and by "lower range of incomes" I mean not only working people, but old age pensioners and those with fixed rates of income, particularly the two latter classes. We see continual little rises going on in the price of what are necessaries of life, and if these do not stop the effect will soon be that the old age pension of 26s.

will buy no more than the original pension of 5s. a week.

The effect of this increase, taking the index figure of 100 for 1942, is that the index figure for household goods now rises to 215, which is a pretty substantial rise in five years. Wearing apparel, etc. will rise from 100 to 152, again a substantial rise. The percentage rise on the various items is out of all proportion and bears excessively on the lower range of incomes. It is fantastic to think that the effect of these increases will be that the lower range of incomes will be called upon to pay to the Exchequer money which has to be made available to be paid out on various forms of subsidies. If any subsidies are to be paid, they should not be paid from a levy on the lower range of incomes.

One always has great sympathy for people who are suggesting that a rising tax should be lowered, especially when that tax may effect some very small section of the poorer class. I would first point out to the Committee that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) spoke of the wide range of goods covered by the tax, but he omitted altogether the qualification that it does not cover utility garments and footwear at all. It is utility garments and footwear which the poorer sections of the people buy, and it is for the very purpose that they should be able to buy them at a cheap rate that the utility scheme was worked out. The goods embraced by those utility schemes have never attracted Purchase Tax. That has been purposely arranged in order that a range of goods might be available without Purchase Tax.

There are some other goods, such as rubber boots, Thermos flasks and hollowware, but only certain parts of the hollow-ware range are covered by the tax, a great number have already been excluded from Purchase Tax. Lawnmowers are not a thing used exclusively by the poorer sections of the population, and as for sports requisites, a large reduction of tax was granted as a concession in the last Finance Act, owing to legitimate pressure then brought upon the Chancellor to encourage sports. There is, indeed, a wide range of these goods, which covers all classes of the public who purchase goods of this kind. Therefore, one cannot, as the hon. Member seemed to do, deal with this matter as if it were something aimed at one particular section of the community. Nor, indeed, can one deal with this as a matter of percentage increases in the existing duty; that is a perfectly irrelevant consideration.

5.15 p.m.

What the late Chancellor did, in introducing these new scales of Purchase Tax, was to be a new floor, a new minimum, which he made 33⅓ per cent. and he did that both in order to support the increases in the higher level, and to attract more money into the Treasury to counteract the inflationary tendencies. If one were to go back on that, it would only mean that one would be knocking out of the Budget a large block of money which would otherwise be attracted by this increase, and one would be driven to finding the money somewhere else. There are definite limits in the higher ranges beyond which it is really impossible to tax, because evasion reaches such a scale that the tax is not recovered. It was on that basis that the 100 per cent. tax was only increased to 125 per cent. There is a limit to which it can be done, and that was thought to be the limit.

The Chancellor raised the floor or the base of this taxation, and then made increases in the higher ranges. He expressly stated that as this was an emergency Budget, and it was not possible to embark upon a lot of elaborate recasting, he had not touched the classifications. He also stated that before the next Budget the whole matter of the classifications would be gone into in the light of these changes which are made by this Budget, and if it was necessary to change goods from one class to another, or to take goods out of one class altogether, that will be considered. If one is bringing forward an emergency Measure for the purpose of quickly raising money one cannot undertake all the elaboration which is dealt with in the usual course of the ordinary Budget of the year. I can assure hon. Members that before the April Budget we shall be reconsidering the effect of this taxation—this uniform rise per class on the goods in the various classes—to see whether any consequential adjustments should be made as regards the classification of goods.

It is a complicated matter; it is not as simple as it may seem to be. A good deal of consideration is needed whether there is any case for changing the classification of these goods. I hope that in the light of the explanation I have given, the Committee will allow this charge to remain, and this hierarchy of charges, if I may use that expression, to proceed, as we believe it is the only way in which we can obtain the amount of money which we think it desirable to raise by this means.

I am sure that the Committee are grateful to my two hon. Friends for raising this point. It is a serious matter, and it is in that spirit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has replied to their speeches. I was particularly glad to hear him reaffirm, and, indeed, strengthen the promise given by his predecessor that before next April the whole question of classifications would be looked into again. We on this side of the Committee are prepared to accept the proposals in this Bill as emergency proposals, and we recognise that it would be inappropriate, as they are such, to go through the whole of the details of the contents of each class. But we also feel that any sharp rise in the amount of tax, such as is introduced in this Bill, creates a necessity for looking anew at the classes in which the various goods are put. We are glad to hear that between now and April that task will be undertaken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I recognise that if this Amendment were carried it would result in the loss of a very substantial amount of revenue which, as far as I personally am concerned, is revenue obtained in a way which I regard as perhaps the most appropriate method for combating inflation.

There is considerable force in the Chancellor's reply to the perfectly logical case put up by my hon. Friends, that is the case that the percentage increases in the higher ranges ought to be higher than they were in the lower ranges. The Chancellor's answer that if the higher taxes were increased too much we would run into a series of evasions by which the amount we would receive would not be increased but actually would be decreased, is an effective one. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends will feel satisfied that they have achieved their purpose in the pledge which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given for an investigation before next April, and that they will not feel it necessary to take this matter to a Division.

As this is an interim Finance Bill, and in view of the assurance given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, at the end, to insert:

"or drugs or medicines manufactured or prepared."

On a point of Order. Could you, Major Milner, tell us what is your intention in regard to the various Amendments to Clause 5 which follow more or less upon this one? Is it your intention to take them together? Will there be a general discussion?

I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. After some hesitation, I have decided to call the proposed Amendments to the Purchase Tax. Many of these matters were fully discussed in the last Finance Act and I hope hon. Members will not take too long. I do not want this course to be taken in any way as a precedent and I hope that hon. Members will make their points shortly.

I quite agree with what you have said, Major Milner, but you will realise that we have deliberately refrained on this occasion from raising a great mass of detailed Amendments which we would have done on a normal Finance Bill. I hope that when we come to the Finance Bill in April it will not be held that we have missed our chance because we did not take it now in the same Finance Bill as that in which the Government were making the alterations.

I said that this course was not to be regarded as a precedent. The proceedings on this particular Bill are different because this Bill has only a limited and not a general ambit.

The purpose of this Amendment is to exclude from the increase in Purchase Tax drugs and medicines manufactured or prepared. At the moment, drugs and medicines are subject to a tax of one-sixth, which is now to become one-third, of the wholesale value of the goods. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that that increase should not apply. As you have pointed out, Major Milner, this matter was dealt with during the Debate on the last Finance Act. I do not propose to go again into all the arguments referred to then. When my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) spoke on this subject on that occasion, he succeeded in extracting from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a promise that during the 12 months after that date, which was 17th June, he would look into the matter of drugs and medicines and would examine the illogicalities which he admitted existed. He promised to bring the matter before us again. I suggest that this is a convenient moment for the Financial Secretary, or someone on his behalf, to make a progress report upon how far he has gone in looking into a matter which was so full of illogicalities.

The Financial Secretary also said on that occasion that no one could say that these medicines or drugs were essential to the life of the community. That is an interesting view. Over the week-end I attempted to find out which drugs and medicines were subject to Purchase Tax and which were not. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to rely upon his utility argument in this case. For example, a simple medicine very commonly used is iodine which, I understand, is subject to Purchase Tax. One cannot help being rather surprised that a Government so prone to making cuts should be keen on doubling the Purchase Tax on so simple an antiseptic. Again, in regard to quinine, I am told that that will be subject to this increase. Is it not rather surprising that a Government who have succeeded in bringing as much cold and misery to most homes as an Government before, should double the tax on so simple a cold preventive.

I am told that all the simpler forms of nerve tonic will be subject to this increase. The Government lead us on from crisis to crisis. Is it not rather sadistic that they should double the Purchase Tax on these simple remedies? With regard to aspirin, I suppose, in view of the firm attitude taken in regard to earlier alcoholic Clauses, that perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman is on rather stronger ground in relentlessly doubling the Purchase Tax. On the other side of the sheet, I am told that many of the simpler forms of poison are on the free list. It may be that that is a deliberate act of Government policy and that from the humanitarian point of view, they are providing a cheap means of escape for those not able to face the brave new world of Socialism.

However that may be, the fact is that many simple, ordinary, common medicines and drugs will be subject to this doubling of the Purchase Tax. I am told that almost all the ingredients of the common cough mixtures, certain of the drugs for relieving pain and many of the simpler medicines, will be subject to the increase. There are also other illogicalities. I understand that vaseline bought in a four ounce tin is free from tax, but if it is bought in a smaller tin it is not. I put these matters before the Committee on information given to me. I confess quite frankly that the schedule shown to me was so obscure and difficult to follow that I may not have been wholly accurate in what I have said. It is difficult sometimes to follow the technical descriptions of most of these drugs.

5.30 p.m.

The arguments in favour of my Amendment for the exclusion of drugs and medicines can be shortly summarised. This imposition constitutes an additional tax on sickness, and it constitutes a tax on things which may prevent minor ailments from becoming more serious. If it is meant to be a mopping up of purchasing power and an anti-inflationary measure, I would say that if a minor ailment is permitted to develop into a major ailment, which probably means hospital treatment, nursing and so on, it may easily defeat its purpose. Anyhow, the Government are very large purchasers of these drugs and medicines, and, therefore, the financial aspect of the matter is not as important as it would appear. The present classification is hopelessly illogical, and I suggest that it would be wise for the Government to accept this Amendment.

I beg to reinforce the plea made by my hon. and learned Friend, and to suggest that we ought to have some explanation from the Government on this question. Personally, I have never been able to understand why these drugs and medicines were subject to Purchase Tax at all, because there is no really solid argument for taxing medicine, any more than there is for taxing food, so far as I can see. In the overwhelming proportion of cases, medicines are a necessity. It may he that there is an infinitesimal proportion of people who take medicines and who do not need them, but the number must be very small. On the other hand, there is a substantial category of people who take medicines because they think they do them good, and, if they think so, it is quite as important as doing them good.

A drug like iodine, which is a great preventive, is capable of rendering very great economic help in the prevention of colds. I do not pretend to be giving advice, though I use it myself, and for the prevention of colds it is a very fine remedy. If we can prevent colds in 100 people in this country, we are doing something which will be of real value at a time when we are wanting the maximum productive effort from our people. It is true that this is an interim Bill, and that the Chancellor, in an earlier speech, promised us that further consideration will be given to the whole question of the categories liable to Purchase Tax, but I would suggest that the point made by my hon. and learned Friend was a cogent one, and that, at this stage of an interim Finance Bill, we should give consideration to the cases of medicines which are necessities of life, preventives or sedatives, as in cases of sleeplessness. There are some drugs which are subject to double tax and which are of very great help in combating sleeplessness, and, under the present strain and stress of modern life, the loss of sleep to our working population is a vital matter. Surely, for the sake of the amount of money which the right hon. and learned Gentleman hopes to get from this extra tax on medicines, he will reconsider the schedule, or, perhaps, consider abolishing it altogether?

I wish to raise in particular the difficulties of the chronic sick, who can hardly be said to be adding to the inflationary pressure of the country at the present time. A great many of the old and infirm have a very real need of medicines and drugs from time to time, and the extra Purchase Tax represents, in many cases, a very serious addition to their weekly budget. We here may not think that a few pence or shillings matter very much, but, to such people they matter a very great deal on top of the many other increases in the cost of living for old and infirm people today.

In addition to the increase, this tax operates most unfairly and discriminates between different types of diseases. While we have got an amazing list of drugs and medicines on which the increased tax is to be levied, there are certain notable exemptions brought about by the Purchase Tax (Exemption) Order, 1945, which exempts, amongst other drugs, penicillin, the sulphonamide group, vaccines and morphine. We tax the curing of toxic goitre and malaria, and leave free the curing of pneumonia and gonorrhœa. We ought to have a sense of logic in these matters, and have matters so arranged that all important diseases can be cured without the higher rate of Purchase Tax being imposed on the drugs and medicines necessary to effect the cure.

There is the further point of the dispensing practitioner who makes up medicines for the use of his patients, and who, particularly when a panel doctor, receives a certain fixed rate for such medicines as he supplies, so that any increase in the Purchase Tax on the ingredients for those medicines must be entirely borne by him. This can scarcely be regarded as a tax to prevent inflationary pressure, because there is no inflationary pressure here. For these reasons, and for those advanced by my hon. and learned Friend, I hope the Chancellor will reconsider the matter and accept this small Amendment.

In supporting the Amendment, I would ask the Chancellor to take this opportunity of having a look at the whole operation of the Purchase Tax as it affects medicine. When we last discussed this question in Committee, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that he could not afford the loss of revenue which the remission of the tax would entail. I think the figure is something like £9 million. If we double that, and assume that we are going to lose a revenue of £18 million, that is not merely the measure of the lost taxation, but the measure of the amount we are going to extract from the sick. There is, of course, machinery for exempting from the tax costly and essential drugs, but, as the examples given by my hon. and learned Friend show, that machinery has been used in a very restrained way, and it is very difficult to see why somebody suffering from malaria should pay the tax, while someone else requiring to take a drug regularly, though it is not an essential drug, should pay the full rate of tax. One has only to look at the long list of articles exempted from Purchase Tax to realise how anomalous is any tax on drugs which are essential to sick persons. I think we all feel that the Chancellor is in good form today in answering questions. I would like to put this question to him. Wigs are exempted from Purchase Tax and, that being so, why are not hair restorers also exempted?

It was said in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill that the Treasury could not afford not to have the revenue from this tax. But the situation now is entirely changed; it is no longer a question of balancing the Budget. The whole point of this tax is to absorb surplus purchasing power by curtailing purchasing power on non-essentials. I do not think anybody could seriously maintain that expenditure on drugs and medicines is expenditure on non-essentials. If the Chancellor imposed additional taxation on patent medicines, there would, possibly, be a good deal of sympathy with it. If he wants to do that, then this is the opportunity for the whole question of the taxation of medicine to be examined with a view to seeing whether some definitions can be arrived at which do more justice to sick people than the present definitions employed in the operation of this tax. That would enable the Treasury, if they feel they must do it, to take the tax off the large nationally advertised medicines while, at the same time, making sure that the sick person is having to bear, in respect of the things he really needs, not merely the 16⅔ per cent., but this heavy additional tax which it is now proposed to impose.

I wish to support this Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), as far as I understood him, said that he was not sure whether certain drugs and medicines be mentioned would be included within the scope of the Purchase Tax. Last Saturday afternoon I made a special visit, at his request, to a member of the pharmaceutical profession in my constituency. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that that gentleman will give full con- firmation of the fact that the drugs and medicines which he listed come within the scope of this proposed 100 per cent. increase on the tax hitherto in existence. I will go even further than my hon. and learned Friend and associate myself with the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), who said he could not see why on earth it was necessary to include drugs and medicines at all. I was certainly horrified to hear him say that iodine and quinine, two of the most valuable drugs, especially at the present time, are going to be included in this list.

Nobody knows what the coming winter is going to be like. I think that hon. Members will agree with me that it is looked forward to with a great deal of anxiety, and even dread, by a large number of people in Great Britain at the present time, particularly those belonging to the working classes. That being so, I am greatly surprised that we have not yet had one speech from hon. Members opposite in support of this very valuable Amendment. I cannot, for the life of me, see why that should be. Nobody knows what the winter is going to be like. It is already giving promise of being quite a hard winter. These things go in cycles, and we may even have a repetition of the hard climatic conditions which prevailed in February and March this year. Then, owing to the lowered vitality of the people, we might easily have serious epidemics. I am sure that nobody on the Treasury Bench will attempt to deny that the vitality of the people is lowered. The fact that there were 2,500 cases of fainting in the streets of London on the day of the Royal Wedding is direct proof that the vitality of the people of this country is considerably lower than it was.

5.45 P.m.

If I am right in my supposition—[Laughter.] In spite of the hilarity on the other side of the Committee, I am completely unmoved. If that is the position at the beginning of December, what are we going to be like when we get to January? What is the health of the people going to be like in January, February and March, and particularly in February, which is always a testing time in this country. That, I am sure, nobody will dispute. If these two drugs—iodine and quinine—are going to be subject to this heavy additional impost, I would ask hon. Members opposite, who take this in such a lighthearted manner, to realise the hardships which will rest upon those in their constituencies who are affected by it. I only hope that particular note will be taken by their constituents of the lighthearted manner in which they are disposed to regard this matter.

In the last few minutes, I have been reading a written answer to a Question put to the Chancellor by my hon. Friend the Member for the London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) which seemed to treat in a cavalier way my hon. Friend's suggestion for the reduction of this proposed tax. I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give us very much of a concession. I can assure him, and those who support him, that if they are prepared so to do, they will not only be acting in their own interests, politically or morally, but will earn the thanks of a very large number of people in this country, not merely the maladcs imaginaires type, but the chronics, and, indeed, of those who are haunted by the fear that if an epidemic takes place in this country they will not be so readily able, as in the past, to buy the necessary drugs. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not able to make such a concession, I sincerely hope that my hon. and learned Friend will take this Amendment to a Division, when I shall certainly give it my support.

One always has sympathy with any taxation which will increase the cost for anybody. It is necessary just to see what exactly, is the scope of this Purchase Tax. First, there is a very large and long list of excluded drugs which were dealt with by the Exclusion Order, 1945. I may tell the Committee that, for some time, there has been under discussion with the Ministry of Health the question of the extension of that list in order to get it on a sounder and better basis. I am quite prepared to admit that its present basis does not seem to be wholly logical. It has "just growed" and like so much of our legislation which grows up, it does not always grow up on the most logical lines. Therefore, when the opportunity comes—as I hope it will—this is a matter of which, between now and next April, there should be a re-examination, with a view to excluding those drugs which are of real importance.

I would remind the Committee that prescribed medicines do not, of course, attract the tax. That is to say, by the definition in the Finance Act, 1940, medicines that are made up by a chemist do not attract the tax as a manufactured article. They are not considered to be a manufactured article, and therefore they are not charged the tax, though some drugs in the medicine may be taxed. If one looks at the proportion of the drugs and the cost, compared to the final article, one would come to the conclusion that the incidence is not very heavy. At the present time this tax affects what used to be known as patent medicines.

The Committee will remember that during the war the medicine Stamp Duty on those was withdrawn and Purchase Tax was substituted. It would be found, so far as the vast majority of receipts from this tax are concerned that they are really a substitution for the old medicine Stamp Duty. The fact that it was made rather wider in its application, and certain exemptions made, may have left certain things which it may be desired now to remedy. But the basis and foundation of the receipts, the £8 million mentioned by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Lin-stead) will be found to be the old patent medicines which attracted in the old days the medicine Stamp Duty and which I think nobody would deny are a very good subject matter for taxation.

I know this is a matter on which hon. Members may differ a good deal, but I cannot believe that the taking of patent medicines without the advice of a doctor is a very good way of dealing with the health of any population. A great many doctors certainly would say it is a most undesirable and unhealthy practice, and one that ought to be avoided as far as possible. It is not always known whether the contents of these medicines, as they are called, will be very good, either to accomplish the ends which they are advertised to accomplish, or, indeed, to accomplish any ends at all. If there are some inclusions in this list which it would be desirable to remove when the list can be properly considered, the Committee can take it that the bulk of this increase in taxation will fall on those classes of goods which formerly used to be subject to the Stamp Duty, and I am sure that the Committee would not object.

Therefore, I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, though it is a matter which I propose to look into before next April to see whether there cannot be more logical and better arrangements about exemptions from this Clause. We shall be very much assisted by the fact that the new Health Service Act will be coming into operation and we shall have the assistance of the Ministry of Health. They will be very large users in the various hospitals and in connection with other matters with which they will be concerned. I hope that on that basis the hon. Member will be able to withdraw his Amendment.

I hope the Committee realises that we are really only discussing this Amendment now because the Treasury have been so dilatory in the past. Certainly so far as I am concerned, and, I think, as far as the mover and the supporters of the Amendment are concerned, this would never have been put down if the promise of the Treasury to remove from this Clause the real essential medicines had been carried out. If all we were discussing was a tax upon the kind of patent medicines to which the Chancellor referred, I would have no sympathy with this Amendment. The Chancellor's words would have carried with me a great deal more weight had he not said exactly the same thing in more or less the same words that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said many months ago. When the Financial Secretary said it we thought that something was going to happen. But nothing has happened. All we get now is a promise by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in December, to say he will look again, before April, at what the Financial Secretary promised on 17th June last, would be a matter for immediate steps. In those circumstances I find myself in a very considerable difficulty.

The reference by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect of patent medicines opens up a vista of pleasant debate which my hon. Friends may wish to continue, and it is one on which we may all take different points of view. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not believe that a patent medicine taken without a doctor's prescription is likely to do much good. I think that there are a good many cases in which it does a considerable amount of harm. All of us will agree that there are included in this list a certain number of essential medicines which cannot in any circumstances fall into the sort of class to which the Chancellor has referred. They have been much too long included. We have been promised their removal in the past, and nothing has been done to implement that proposal. Certainly, if the matter were to be taken by my hon. Friends to a Division, I should not only be voting for a reduced tax on a class of patent medicines but registering a protest against the grave ineptitude of the Government in failing to remove essential drugs which they have still included in the list.

I have two remarks I would like to make, but before I do so I would like to protest against this suggestion that when anybody has anything wrong with him he must take up the time of a doctor and impose an additional strain upon the medical profession in curing what may be a minor ailment. In my own home in my early youth—and it is being repeated in the case of my sons and daughters—we did not go to the doctor for every conceivable ailment. We combated it with commonsense and som knowledge of a particular medicine or by rubbing something on the chest, or by giving an aperient and sending the child quickly and early to bed. I think we are barking up an entirely wrong tree in suggesting that these proprietary brands, and other brands, should always be administered only after they have been prescribed by a doctor.

If the Chancellor is going to look at this list surely he could act quite apart from Budget day, and could do it now or at any minute. He could give instructions to his civil servants to look at the list of exemptions and put into it a great number of the drugs, if not all of them, about which we have been talking this afternoon. I would say both in fairness and from the point of view of getting the drugs available in the shops—the business about retailers is a very good instance of what happens to drugs when they think the tax is going to be taken off—he should do that now, and not wait until April. If he cannot do it now, let him look at the grants paid to doctors doing their own dispensing under the Health Acts, because grants to the doctors are low enough as it is and their expenses will now be increased. I hope that is something he can do, and can handle at once.

I think that on this side of the Committee it is not difficult to detect that the Chancellor's attitude to this Amendment is less austere and more sympathetic that it was to those which preceded it. I think we can see from these benches the main difficulty in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is placed. First, he has this yawning gap in front of him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are all the Opposition leaders?"] I am always glad to give a little cause for hilarity amongst hon. Members opposite. I meant, this yawning financial gap. He has inherited a bankrupt estate in this Budget. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) pointed out just now that the Government have been considering this for some time and have not yet arrived at a decision. It is only fair to add that the new Chancellor has not been cogitating this particular matter very long, and he may want to give it further thought between now and April.

I would, however, submit to him, in view of the arguments that have been urged, that this impost does run counter to the main objectives of this Budget, which are to take counter-inflationary steps and to mop up unnecessary expenditure. No one can accurately describe someone lying ill in bed as mopping up anything, except occasional doses of broth, and so on; and no one can describe these medicines or drugs in any way as luxuries. They are not optional. In many cases, they are necessities. I do not pretend to enter into the controversy whether the taking of patent medicines is good or bad. I think that the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) probably put his finger on the spot, as a member of the medical profession, when he said that what mattered was not so much whether a medicine did good or not, but whether the patient thought it did him good—which, I understand, is the chief argument of the medical profession; it is psychological. Surely, to impose Purchase Tax upon these drugs as a deterrent entirely misses the purpose. Nobody takes them for fun. People take them because they are feeling ill.

I thought that I detected in the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not a pledge but certainly a very broad hint, that he was likely to take sympathetic action between now and next April. I would put this to him, with the greatest respect—that it is much more important to act now in December than when the winter of our discontent is over. Here I find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie). I should have thought that the thing to do was to accept the Amendment now, then have the cogitation between now and next April and, if necessary, in the April Budget put on the taxation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman requires, if he then requires it. I think that would be the more humanitarian approach.

In any case, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) will carry the matter a little further, for this reason. There is something in what Sam Weller called "beeswaxing and turpentining" the right hon. and learned Gentleman's memory. If a Division took place now it would impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Committee feels on this matter. I cannot believe that it is only on this side of the Committee that these views are held. I am sure that hon. Members opposite are anxious to record in the Division Lobby their anxiety for the sick in their constituencies, and their desire to deal with patent medicines; and I am sure that their constituents are very anxious to see what their views are on this very important matter. So that we can have on the record those who are inclined to succour the sick and those who take the more reactionary view, I hope that the matter will be pressed to a Division.

I am very much tempted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman). It was, indeed, a lovely picture that he drew—of prescribing for various members of his family. I wondered, as he drew it, which member of his family prescribed a hair restorer for him. I entirely agree with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about patent medicines. There are numbers of people who have the positive vice of constantly dosing themselves. I was always brought up in the tradition of my family. I had a great-aunt who died in the early eighties who had this habit—so much so, indeed, that the chemist's boy was under instructions to call for orders every morning. She died young. People like that ought to be stamped out of existence. The people, however, who really will be hit by this extra taxation are the poor who are urgently in need of moderate doses of medicines at a particular time, and I do beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to think again about this.

What does concern me—and this applies to the whole of this Budget—is that His Majesty's Board of Customs and Excise have not exercised their usual care. We had an example of that in the Amendment on which we have just divided. Surely, there ought to be more specification in the long Schedule to the principal Act; and there ought to be more specification in this case. I think we are entitled to demand from the Government a little more attention to detail, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. S. Lloyd) will not withdraw the Amendment.

I intervene for a moment or two because it became obvious to me while the Chancellor was replying that in one particular respect he had been misadvised—I think in a rather important respect. He based part of his case for the rejection of this Amendment on the fact that medicines prescribed by doctors would not be increased in price by the effects of the tax.

I did not say that. What I said was that they did not attract the tax because the making of the prescription was not manufacture.

I, of course, accept the Chancellor's phrase, but it still illustrates my point. They will, in fact, attract the tax in so far as they are proprietary medicines. If we set aside medicines prescribed under the National Health Insurance Act, 50 per cent. of the medicines prescribed today are, in fact, proprietary medicines. Therefore, something like 50 per cent. of the non-N.H.I. medicines will attract the full 33½ per cent. tax. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that, in fact, this tax was nothing more than a repetition of the old medicine Stamp Duty. I do not think he has been informed on this point, that the old medicine Stamp Duty did not apply to medicines which were sent to the chemist to be sent out with a medical prescription. Therefore, once again, we are going to have a heavy incidence of tax on medicines which previously did not bear any tax at all. I think that these two particulars missing from the material supplied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be brought to light before a decision is taken.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the sympathetic way in which he has dealt with this matter; but his sympathy has been simply verbal. We have had verbal sympathy on previous occasions from the Financial Secretary. What I had hoped to get on this occasion was some action. My fear in putting down this Amendment was with regard to the diminution of the anti-inflationary character of the Chancellor's proposals. That argument has been completely disposed of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said

I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, at the end, to insert:

"or batteries or accumulators used in wireless sets which cannot be operated by an electric mains supply."

Many hon. Members will agree that wireless sets today are almost a necessity in the average household. Certainly it cannot be said that they are any longer a luxury. The Committee will know that there are two types of sets, the one which is stimulated into activity by the electric mains supply, and the other by means of batteries or accumulators. The purpose of this Amendment is to exempt batteries and accumulators for the second type of wireless set from increased Purchase Tax. There is, of course, no Purchase Tax on the mains supply of electricity. Battery sets are in use today largely for two reasons. First, the battery set may be an old type of set, owned by people who cannot afford a new set, or cannot be supplied with one of the modern types. Secondly, they are used by those who have no electric mains supply available. It would appear, therefore, that these sets are largely owned by the poorer sections of the community. It seems quite illogical to tax batteries for battery operated sets, whereas the mains electricity supply gets off scot free. The revenue from these batteries must be incredibly small, and I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider this question very sympathetically.

There is very little I can add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor). This concerns mainly those living in the country who have no electricity supply. Our country is probably one of the worst off from that point of view, and it particularly applies in the case of those living in the countryside. Those who are particularly affected are the people who live in cottages and in the poorer parts of the country. The people in the cities and towns are in no way affected, because they have an electric mains supply, but those without a mains supply of electricity find that they are penalised for no apparent reason.

In considering his reply, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should bear in mind that people in the remote parts of the country very often cannot get a daily paper, to say nothing of evening papers, especially now in view of the difficulties of transport and deliveries. It is these people who find the news on the wireless most valuable. I live in a very remote part of the country, and I have to rely on a battery wireless set for my news and entertainment. It is seven or eight miles from the nearest place where I can acquire a newspaper, which means that I do not very often get a paper. People in these remote parts have a greater need for wireless sets than those who live in the towns

I hope that sympathetic consideration will be given to this Amendment. If it should be impossible to accept it, I hope that particular consideration will be given to the 120-volt high tension dry batteries, which are used in almost all ordinary wireless sets in the rural areas. It is not at all funny to suggest that rural areas do not all receive daily newspapers. It is perfectly true. If there is one section of the community that really needs and depends on a wireless, it is the people in the rural areas. I do not think it is generally appreciated what a wide discrepancy there is between the cost of running a wireless set off the mains and the cost of running a battery driven set. This difference is out of all proportion, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously take it into consideration. As I understand it, four 120-volt dry batteries are needed a year for a battery driven set, which costs £2 9s. without tax, and two accumulators costing 31s. It costs 26s. a year to charge the accumulators every week. Together with the cost of the wireless licence, this works out at £6 6s. per year, as against 24s. in the case of the all-mains wireless set. To that amount must be added 28s. 2d. Purchase Tax.

It will be seen, therefore, that it is a real imposition to raise the Purchase Tax. I suggest that this is not a matter which can be left over until next April, which would take us through the winter. Something ought to be done now, because many of my constituents and others living in rural areas will not be able to afford to buy these batteries at the increased cost, with the result that they will have to do without wireless altogether. I hope that the Chancellor can make an exception in regard to these batteries, taking into account the wide discrepancy in running costs between the two types of set. We must give the farmworkers and others living in rural areas a chance to maintain their sets. I would urge not merely that the tax be left at the old rate, but that my right hon. Friend should consider making a clean sweep and removing it altogether.

As hon. Members know, I am one of those least likely to look for malevolent designs on the part of the Government, but when I observe this tax on wireless sets using batteries, I am inclined to think that there is a desire on the part of the Government to restrict the public from hearing the truth and the news. I am inclined to connect it up with the restrictions which have been imposed on the newspapers and other printed matter. If I am not to persist in that view I can only be returned to that state of native innocence which I enjoy if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw this impost. Battery sets are of great importance, not only to country dwellers but to town dwellers. There are certain areas in which reception from the B.B.C. is indifferent, and in which the use of battery sets makes it possible for those who would otherwise not get good reception to have this very useful annex to their daily life.

Would the hon. Gentleman give us some technical details about this interesting discovery?

I always disappoint the Committee if I speak too briefly, but perhaps on this occasion I may be allowed to persist in my normal habit of speaking briefly and to the point, an example which might be followed by the hon. Gentleman, who has just done me the honour of suggesting that I might give the Committee some further technical details. Such details as I have in mind are addressed to the Chancellor. This is a bad tax, which seeks to tax the obsolete. I would agree that the battery system tends more and more to become an obsolete form of wireless reception. A bad tax is one which tends to diminish further the source from which the taxation comes. The effect of this taxation will be to disgust an increasing number of persons with the battery system they are using. From the Chancellor's point of view there will be a decrease in revenue. I, personally, would not continue to use a battery set with this new impost laid upon it, because it is an inconvenient apparatus and carries with it many disadvantages.

Is not the main point that people have to use battery sets, because they are not on the main electricity supply?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for pointing that out, but I would like to be excused for thinking that the main point is the one which I am making. The Chancellor should have in mind that those who use battery sets are making no demand on the diminishing resources of his colleague, the Minister of Fuel and Power. Although I believe that the amount of power which is used is an all-electric set is very small, it is only by small mercies that we can hope to get through our present economic crisis. This impost will encourage people who still intend to enjoy B.B.C. broadcasts to abandon battery sets which consume no power.

I would remind the Chancellor that he has already stumbled into this folly, or at least his predecessor did, and he is his predecesor's inheritor. The Chancellor's predecessor manipulated the Purchase Tax on electric fires, and discovered that the withdrawal of some of that tax increased the consumption of electricity. I may well be that this extraordinary paradox, which was so obscure to the ex-Chancellor, may be repeated by the present Chancellor. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's desire to put extra Purchase Tax on these batteries will encourage people to consume more power, an action which his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power will not be inclined to encourage.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that batteries have to be charged by electricity?

The amount of technical information which I am getting from the Benches opposite must be as interesting to you, Sir Robert, as it is to me. I am aware of that, but the hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the amount of power used to charge batteries is less than the continued use of power for an all-electric set.

Would the hon. Gentleman tell us more about this interesting discovery?

I shall not, on this occasion, give way. The attempt to make this Committee a universal brains trust is one that I deprecate, especially as it is obvious that I am carrying off all the honours in the exchanges. I suggest that the Chancellor will get very little from this impost. He will offend the sense of justice which is inherent in our people. He will get even less money than before, because the tendency of this impost will be to discourage people from continuing the somewhat economical, though inconvenient, battery system.

I, too, hope that the Chancellor will reconsider this matter, because I believe that the Government have made a mistake. While it may sometimes be difficult for them to accept an Amendment without loss of face, I am sure that in this case the matter was not adequately considered. It is important for the Government to keep in touch with everybody in an emergency. All of us who sit for rural areas know that it is impossible for all the people in those areas to get a mains electricity supply, and the White Paper which was issued today will put that further off than ever. It is essential that the country dweller, removed from all opportunity of a supply from the grid, should have an equal chance with those in towns, who pay nothing directly for their supply. Further, from the point of view of agriculture it is very important for rural people to take full advantage of weather forecasts. It is impossible for people in scattered districts to get those forecasts unless they have the necessary wireless set with which to hear them. I believe that this extra tax will be an annoyance. It will not bring in much revenue, and I beg the Government to reconsider the matter.

On this matter, I must give the answer which has been given on previous Amendments. If we were to accept the view that a case has been made out in this instance, we might have to go on to consider a number of other suggestions which might have equal cogency. As my right hon. and learned Friend reminded the Committee, the Budget was designed to mop up inflationary pressure. The rates of Purchase Tax were raised en bloc, and the merits of particular article were not distinguished for that purpose. Members on both sides of the Committee have pointed to the undoubted fact that country dwellers, who have no electric light installed in their houses, are at a disadvantage in the reception of B.B.C. broadcasts. I fully appreciate the force of that argument If it were opportune to review the merits and demerits of Amendments to move out of the scope of increase in tax a variety of articles, this Amendment would have to be carefully considered.

It is, unfortunately, the fact that when the Government increase taxes, someone has to suffer a certain amount of hardship. For these reasons, while I entirely appreciate the force of the case put forward on behalf of the country dwellers, I feel that I must ask the Committee to accept the view that, at the moment, we cannot accept the Amendment. In point of fact, the amount of money involved is about £1 million; to accept this Amendment would thus be to give a not unsubstantial concession, and, to that extent, it would militate against the object of the Budget, and of the Bill which we are now discussing. For those reasons, while I entirely appreciate the force of the arguments to which I have listened very sympathetically, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

I confess that I am extremely disappointed at the reply of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I did not have the opportunity of witnessing personally, but I read with interest this morning of the hon. and learned Gentleman's appearance yesterday in the role of "Farmer Jarge." I gather that he made a great success in answering agricultural questions. It was remarked on all sides that he knew much more about agriculture after ten minutes' study of the Departmental answers, than the Minister of Agriculture after two years in office. He has replied to a case put in the interests of the country-dweller, and I thought that we would get a sympathetic answer. Instead, we got a dusty answer—and, by now, it is the very dusty answer which we have received on every one of these Amendments. All of us, facing the seriousness of the position, and realising that superfluous purchasing power would have to be mopped up by increases in Purchase Tax, have adopted a self-denying ordinance, as is borne out from the Order Paper today.

When we compare it with the Order Paper on the ordinary Budget, when Members on all sides of the House put down the particular articles in which they are interested, I am sure that the Government will pay tribute to the fact that, with the exception of four articles, hon. Members have refrained from doing anything which might substantially reduce the effort which they are all agreed will be necessary. There are, therefore, only four articles to be considered. Even if all four were accepted, it would not make very much of an impact on the main purpose of the Bill. I go so far as to say that of these four, there are only two which I personally consider to be of very great importance. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman opposite, I may change my mind when he moves his Amendment and I have heard from him an explanation as to what is mutton-cleaning material. I do not know whether it is used to clean mutton, or whether it is made out of mutton, but it does not seem to me quite on the same level of importance as the other things which we are discussing.

Equally, toilet preparations would appear to be a little more in the luxury class. There are, therefore, only two things which hon. Members thought sufficiently important to make any impact upon the general principle. One was the question of essential drugs. That was disposed of by the vote of the Committee. The other is this question of batteries, which, I think, Members for agricultural constituencies realise, imposes not only a big financial burden, but may, during the coming winter, have a considerable effect on the morale of the agricultural population.

6.45 p.m.

The right hon. Gentleman need not fear that by giving some concession in this case, he is opening the flood-gates to more. There is no possibility of that. There are only two more Amendments to be taken, and it is unlikely that, at another stage of the Bill, any new Amendment will be called. He can be absolutely certain, therefore, that if he gives this concession, no other is likely to be pressed, and, so far as I am concerned, no other will be asked for. The right hon. Gentleman is now fortified by the return of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure that one of my hon. Friends will be glad to keep up the Debate for a minute, or perhaps an hon. Member opposite will discuss the technical details and carry on the Debate, in order to give the brief space of time which the Financial Secretary will require to get from the Chancellor, what I am sure he will give—the authority to make this concession.

Taking advantage of the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), I will, for one second, if I may, put to the House a very earnest plea for the users of these batteries in Scotland, and, particularly, in the Highlands of Scotland. The distance there from electricity, in spite of the promises and plans made for electricity, means that there are vast areas where no one can possibly hope to get electricity for many years to come. I think that in these days of crisis—because we all admit a crisis is on its way—it is essential that the people of these areas should have facilities for hearing what is going on every day, because they are as much affected as those in more populous areas. These batteries are, I think, a necessity. I do not think that the financial effect is such that the Chancellor need have any fear if this little concession is granted. I hope that he will see his way to look at this matter once again.

Before my right hon. Friend listens to the appeals of the charmers on the other side, I hope that he will get the facts right. We have had a complete mine of information from hon. Members opposite, both Gaelic and Sassenach. These batteries are divided into two—high-tension and low-tension. Do not let hon. Members on the other side think that wireless users are continually buying low-tension accumulators, because they are not. A great majority of these are rented. They are bought by radio dealers and rented to the user who, generally, has two of them. They last for several years, and, therefore, the Purchase Tax will not affect people immediately.

To what extent does the rental system of batteries go on in the Highlands of Scotland or the depths of Wales?

If the hon. Gentleman will go and look, he will find that it goes on to a very considerable extent. That is why I say that my right hon. Friend should get the facts right. The second fact is that the use of battery sets is by no means confined to rural areas. A very great number of the users of these are people who live in leasehold premises which have only got for 20 or 30 years to run and where the landlord would not put in electric light.

He would not be allowed to do it.

He would not do it before the war. Therefore, I suggest to hon. Members opposite that if they want to counteract the effect of this tax let them do something about the obsolete method of property.

Will the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) develop more fully what he called the obsolete method of property owning

I would not be allowed to do so, but I put it to hon. Members opposite that they should think about it. I have just put these two points, and I plead with the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he gives way on this or even considers it to get the facts of the position, and I think he will find that the situation is not so difficult for the users of this type of set as has been made out.

There is just one point which I wish to put before the Committee and it is in regard to the flight from the country to the towns. Every amenity that we can give to the country people is a great advantage in this connection. On the Copeland Islands exactly opposite my home, only one and a half miles from the mainland, there used to live 150 people with a church and a school. Two years ago the last of those people left those islands. People nowadays look for something more in their lives than just working on the land from daylight to dark. Another island I might mention is Rathlin Island, where Robert Bruce once took refuge. On that island there are about 200 people and each night these people gather in neighbours' houses to listen to the news on the wireless. Anything which can make their lives happier and enable them to enjoy things is for the benefit of the whole community. Sometimes in the winter they are cut off from the mainland for as much as three weeks through storms, and in the past aeroplanes have had to drop food for these people or they would have starved. As for newspapers, of course, in stormy weather it is impossible to get them over. There are a number of other islands round the coast of Scotland which are in exactly the same position. I hope when the Chancellor is making up his mind he will consider these people who live and earn their living in these isolated islands round our coasts.

I am delighted to support the plea of the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) as one of his constituents who lives in a remote district, has no kind of electric light and uses a battery wireless set. In his turn one of my constituents, whom I see on the benches opposite will, I hope, rise and support me because, this is no party issue. It is too important an issue to be that. I sincerely hope before we divide on this Amendment that we may hear something a little less technical and more practicable than the one contribution which so far we have heard from the benches opposite.

I have had considerable correspondence from my constituents on this matter and they are worried about the rise of price. I would quote a recent letter which I had from the Minister of Supply who admitted that a 120-volt H.T. battery had risen from 7s. 6d. to 15s. 2d. since 1939. That is a 100 per cent. rise, but what the Minister forgot to say was that the life of these batteries now is very much less than it was owing to the reduction in quality. Most users of high tension batteries now reckon the life in terms of weeks, where previously they reckoned it in terms of months. In consequence it is no exaggeration to say that the running of a battery set now is an expensive luxury. Perhaps we will be able to charm the Chancellor into exuding a little sympathy.

I was not at all impressed by the argument of the Solicitor-General, who said that he thought it was impossible to consider any of these Amendments; and that he could not accept any exceptions because bicycles have already been excepted. It is quite unreasonable to offer something to the few persons who may be in need of new bicycles, and they are a very small number, and nothing to the people in country districts who use battery sets and who are far more numerous than those who would buy a new bicycle. I suggest that the Chancellor should change his view and accept this most important Amendment.

I was very glad to hear that the Solicitor-General, though quite sympathetic to the objects of the Amendment, was not prepared to accept it at the present moment. There is one consideration which I want to put to the Committee, which I feel might convert even the Opposition to the view that this Amendment cannot be accepted. The Amendment refers to a wireless set which cannot be operated by electric main supplies. Wireless sets used in motor cars cannot possibly be operated by electric main supplies, and I am certain it never was the intention of those who put down this Amendment to extend this concession to those who use wireless sets in their motor cars. If at a later date the Government see their way to accept this Amendment they should not include those who are fortunate enough to have wireless sets in their motor cars. Therefore, if only on technical grounds, which generally are so dear to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), I support the Government and resist this Amendment.

When the main Budget at the beginning of the year was introduced I raised this question at a very late hour with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was very sympathetic towards my point of view, but he asked me, if my memory serves me right, not to press him at that stage. That was at a time when this tax was not doubled as it is now. I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will listen to the arguments that have been advanced tonight, and I feel sure that he will realise the full and vital necessity of giving what we possibly can to agriculture at the moment.

The question of the production of food is of vital importance, and it is physically impossible to get the different amenities to the country which we would wish owing to the crisis that has developed, but if we can possibly help in a small way with something which is necessary and helpful to the amenities and which is not over great in cost, we should gain a lot by doing so. I sincerely trust that the Chancellor will take all these matters into account, and realise that my hon. Friends from Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and myself from Cornwall have put in front of him different telling points with regard to this matter and that he will reconsider this case in the interests of agriculture and with that graciousness which we know he can show, go to the Box and say "This is proof that I can alter my decision as a result of the Debate that has taken place tonight."

I am sure that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will believe me when I say that if I am convinced I shall not have the slightest hesitation in altering my views. I do not believe that my views are so much better than those of anybody else that one can always absolutely rely upon them. I am very much influenced, as a countryman myself, by the arguments put forward on behalf of the rural population. There is no doubt that many people with the present rather low standard of transport facilities are thrown back on their own resources for entertainment. I would be quite prepared to consider this matter before the Report stage and to see whether I can do anything. I give no promise and make no undertaking, but I will look into this whole matter before the Report stage to see whether anything can be done.

I am sure that all my hon. Friends would like me to say on their behalf how grateful we are to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he has said. We quite realise that he has made no pledge of any kind, but we know also that when he says that he will look into this matter he will do so with a desire to meet, if that is any way possible, the arguments that have been advanced to him from both sides of the House, with one exception. In view of the Chancellor's action I am sure that my hon. Friend will feel that the moving of the Amendment has served an extremely useful purpose, and will be prepared to withdraw it.

I also would like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the attitude that he has taken up. In view of the assurance that he has given that he will consider this matter before the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, at the end, to insert:

"or knitted stockinette (mutton) cleaning cloth.

It is with a song in my heart that I move this Amendment, in view of the statement which the Chancellor made in regard to the last Amendment before the Committee. I felt very glad when I heard the Solicitor-General say that individual objects would be considered on their merits. I feel that it is necessary at this stage, in the light of what I have to say, to put it on record that these omnibus increases in the basic rates are generally conflicting and confusing, and are unsound. Several Amendments are to be introduced today in cases where the increase in the basic rates of Purchase Tax will inflict hardships upon the lower income groups. I want to make it perfectly clear that I did not vote on this matter because I felt that it was not my duty to do so.

The Amendment deals with one example, among others, of ill-advised action which is inflicting great hardship upon a large number of people. I believe this feeling is shared by many hon. Members on this side of the Committee. The material referred to in the Amendment is specified as:

"plain, unbleached all-cotton fabric of louse texture, of a type normally used for covering food or cleaning machinery, being fabric made on a circular machine and from a single yarn."

In order to extricate the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) from his intellectual difficulties, I would explain that this is fabric used only for covering food and for cleaning. It cannot be used for the manufacture of apparel of any kind. Unfortunately, this fabric comes under Class 2, which is defined as:

"tissues and fabrics of whatever width (other than jute fabric) whether in the piece, shaped, or partly made up."

I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that it is very unfair that this material, which is used in cleaning and for industrial uses——

I hope the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting, but I would like to clear up one point. He has read out a description of articles which he wants removed from the Schedule, but the description does not seem to correspond with the definition that he uses in his Amendment. I did not hear anything about nets, stockinette, or mutton—or indeed any—cleaning cloth.

I sought to explain that the fabric referred to, which is "knitted stockinette (mutton) cleaning cloth," was included in the Schedule under Class 2, comprising tissues and fabrics, among the net or lace curtains. I seek to discriminate among the materials which are included in the Schedule referring to "fancy net or lace curtains." This type of material, which is used for industrial priority purposes for cleaning machinery and for covering food, is a purely utility product. It is not a luxury commodity. It is wrong that it should be subject to this increase in taxation, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will emulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer by not merely showing sympathy for the Amendment but making the statement that he intends, in the period before the Report stage, to give further consideration to the matter.

I am sorry that I cannot accede to my hon. Friend's request. I listened carefully for an argument which would distinguish this cloth from other sorts of cloth which could be used for similar purposes. A case can be made out for excluding all sorts of cloths, and before it would be right to accept an Amendment there would have to be something to distinguish this cloth from others. It would be necessary to make out for this cloth a stronger case than can be made out for all the wide range of similar materials. I am not even quite certain as to the exact effect of the Amendment. I am not quite certain whether the definition:

"knitted, stockinette (mutton) cleaning cloth "—

could be limited to the purposes which were indicated by my hon. Friend. It is a general description of a particular type of cloth, with "cleaning" appended as an adjective. It is not an adjective which I should have thought would include a very precise definition of the purposes for which it is used.

It is in the Commissioner's Notice No. 78J.

I am trying to concentrate upon the actual words that my hon. Friend uses in his Amendment, because it is by those words, if they become part of the Bill, that those who will have to administer the Measure will be governed. For those reasons, although I listened very carefully to the arguments of my hon. Friend, I much regret to say that I found nothing in his arguments which makes a case for this sort of cloth in contradistinction to other cloths which serve equally useful purposes but are nevertheless included within the scope of the taxation.