BRITISH BUDGET

Evening Star, Issue 19855, 2 May 1928, Page 9

BRITISH BUDGET

DEBATE IN COMMONS KEROSENE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM NEW DUTIES (British Official News.) Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. RUGBY, May 1. (.Received May 2, at noon.) The Budget resolutions dealing with the taxes for the current year were considered by the House of Commons to-d»y. The Rev. J. Barr (Lab.) moved a reduction of the duty on tea from 4d to Id per lb, arguing that the duty was one of tho indirect taxes that notably was felt by the poorer classes. Mr A. M. Samuel (Financial Secretary Jo tho Treasury) resisted tho motion. Ho expressed the opinion that the ten duty was not onerous, as it represented only 2s (id or 2s 7d per head per year. Incidentally he mentioned that the clearances ■of tea in Britain last year were 402,000,0001 b, of which 331 >ooo,ooolb was Empire tea. Before the war Empire tea averaged 261,000,0001 b yearly. Of tea not Empire grown 15 per cent, came from Java, and only about 3 per cent, from China. The motion was rejected. When the resolution imposing a new Customs duty of 4d per gallon on hydro-carbon oils was reached, Mr Churchill (Chancellor of the Exchequer) announced that he would introduce an amendment excluding kerosene from the scope of the duty. Ho admitted that ho was taking this step as the result of representations which had been made to him from country districts where electric light and gas were not available, and kerosene consequently was largely used tor lighting and cooking. He said that a case of hardship could undoubtedly be made out. Tho duty would apply only to the products of petroleum. His amendment would involve a reduction in the Estimates before the second reading of tho Finance Bill. TAX ON EMPIRE OILS. LONDON, May 1. (Received May 3, at 1.20 p.m.) Mr Churchill, in answer to a question in the House of Commons, said he had carefully considered admitting Empire hydro-carbon oils free or at a reduced duty, but tho practical benefit of preference for heavy oils would bo negligible, while it would greatly complicate the working of the tax. He had therefore decided against a preferential duty.—Australian Press AssociationUnited Service.