HC Deb 23 November 1911 vol 31 cc1384-5
Mr. HAROLD SMITH

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total cost under all heads in connection with the issue of Forms IV. and VIII. under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

I must refer the hon. Member to the first part of the answer I gave yesterday to the Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH

Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to a Return?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

I do not think I can do that.

Viscount HELMSLEY

On what ground does the right hon. Gentleman refuse the Return?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

Because it would cost a great deal of labour and be of very little service.

Viscount HELMSLEY

Would it not have the advantage of showing the public what the Government have been doing in this matter?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

It would not give the public any information worth having.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Form TV., under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. Forms I. and II., being the letter covering the same and the instructions issued therewith respectively, and Form VIII. were submitted in draft before issue and approved by the Law Officers of the Crown or the junior counsel advising the Treasury, or, if not, upon whom the responsibility for advising the Board of Inland Revenue as to the terms of these documents finally rests; and whether there were any means whereby the costs incurred by the Government in unsuccessfully defending forms in the Law Courts might be thrown upon the persons finally responsible for the terms of the forms, or otherwise relieving the taxpayers of the country from those costs?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

The Board of Inland Revenue took the best legal advice available to them with regard to the forms in question. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

Did the Board consult the Law Officers of the Crown?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

They acted in accordance with the usual practice.