§
Subsection (5) of section thirty-seven of the Finance Act, 1931, is hereby repealed and the following subsection shall be substituted therefore:
(2) This section shall not apply to collectors in and for Scotland and Northern Ireland or to the appointment of collectors by, or to collectors appointed by, and commissioners acting under section sixty-nine of the Income Tax Act, 1918."—[Mr. Benson.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. BensonI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The initiative for this Clause dealing with the appointment of collectors for the City of London comes from the collectors themselves, and I and the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir G. 2277 Broadbridge) promised that we would raise the matter. The position is -that all Income Tax collectors, save a small group in the City of London, are appointed by the Board of Inland Revenue. That appointment was made in the Act of 1931, and when the change was made the Clerk to the Commissioners of the City of London started an agitation and got the support of the collectors themselves to contract out of the change. The result was that when the Act was passed the City of London was excluded.
Collectors appointed by the Board of Inland Revenue are pensionable officers; collectors appointed by the local Commissioners in the City of London are not pensionable officers. In order to get the support of his collectors the Clerk to the Commissioners practically guaranteed them permanent possession of their offices. The result is that these collectors are getting older and older, and it was not until the Board of Inland Revenue put its foot down and refused to confirm their re-appointments that younger collectors were appointed. Last year the Board refused to appoint four of the old collectors—one was 67, another 73, one 83 and another 86. This year they refused to appoint three—one was 76, one 82, and the other 85. It is a very healthy thing to be a collector in the City of London. The point is that so long as the City of London collectors are appointed by the Commissioners on a non-pensionable basis they must give some concession in the way of allowing them to give longer service.
Throughout the length and breadth of the country collectors appointed by the Board of Inland Revenue have to retire at the age of 60 on pension, but collectors appointed in the City of London retire at the age of 70 unpensioned. There are two objections to that. First, from the point of view of that tax machinery, we get old people to do the job. Secondly, from the point of view of the collector himself, he can never become pensionable. It is not for the purpose of getting pensions for the people already appointed but to remedy this bad system of having what are, in effect, State servants unpensioned, that the London collectors have asked us to introduce a Clause transferring the appointment of the City of London collectors from the Local Commissioners to the Board of Inland 2278 Revenue. I think on human grounds this anomaly must sooner or later be ended. I think we can argue very strongly that the sooner it is ended the better, and there is no earlier time than the present.
One other point. So long as the collectors in the City of London are appointed by the Commissioners and not by the Board of Inland Revenue, the tax collection of London is a small enclave of the whole of the country. For instance, if a taxpayer in arrears moves out of the City of London into the country, then the collectors of the City of London cannot follow that taxpayer for the purpose of tax collection. They have to report the matter to the Board of Inland Revenue, and the Board has to report the matter back to wherever the taxpayer has moved. Similarly, if a country taxpayer moves into the City of London, he cannot be followed by the non-City of London tax collector; the matter has to be reported. It is very clumsy machinery to have this wire-netting cage round the City of London which prevents either the City of London tax collector following a man outside, or vice versa. Both from the point of view of the tax collectors themselves, who now wish to come on —at any rate so far as new appointments are concerned—to the normal basis throughout the rest of the country, when they can become pensionable officers of the Board of Inland Revenue, and for the more efficient management of the tax collection of this country, I suggest that it is time for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept this Clause.
§ Sir George Broadbridge (City of London)I desire to support this Clause moved by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). There is little I can add to what he has said, for he has dealt very fully with it. It is quite true that these City collectors asked to be excluded from the Finance Bill in 1931 but they have evidently found that, in asking to be so excluded, they made a mistake. I know this class of tax collector in the City. I frequently come into contact with them, and I am perfectly certain that they are not desirous of blowing hot and cold, and having regard to the fact that the City of London is the largest tax-collecting area in this country, it behoves us to see that the tax collectors are serving under the very best conditions. With those few words I commend this Clause to the Committee for their acceptance.
§ Mr. AsshetonIf the hour was not so late I could give the Committee a lot of interesting history about the collection of tax inside the City of London, but I think I had better confine myself briefly to the points which have been raised. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) knows, collection from the City was a considered decision taken by the late Lord Snowden who was Chancellor at that time, and whose view was shared by the hon. Member. Subsequently, the hon. Member somewhat modified his views and I think that in 1936 he started moving in another direction. I do not want to ask the Committee to accept this Clause, but the policy of the Board of Inland Revenue at the moment is to await an approach from the Commissioners of the Division of the City of London. I understand that at the present time there is still a division of opinion among the staff concerned as to the desirability of of the City collections being centralized under the direction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but we will await an approach from the Commissioners and it is quite possible that before we have another Finance Bill it may be that some change may be made.
§ Mr. BensonIn view of what the Financial Secretary has said I beg leave to withdraw the Motion. I suggest that in addition he should not await an approach from the Commissioners only but should also be prepared to consider an approach from the collectors.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanMr. Brooke.
§ Sir F. SandersonOn a point of Order. Do you propose, Mr. Williams, to call the new Clause standing in my name dealing with "Deduction for cost of artificial limbs"?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanNo, it has not been selected.
§ Sir F. SandersonMay I ask for your guidance, Mr. Williams? When I drew up this Clause and handed it in to the Table in the form of a Question I was told that it could not be put in the form of a Question but must be put in the form of a new Clause to the Finance Bill. Could you inform me in what way I could make my desire known to the Chancellor?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanNo, not at the moment.