NEW CLAUSE.—(Names of parties in certain cases not to be revealed.) (Hansard, 15 June 1944)

§ Commander Galbraith
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope this Clause is self-explanatory and, that I can be very brief indeed. The situation that exists, and has in fact always existed, as between the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue authority is that matters connected with taxation are treated as private. As evidence of that, hon. Members will recollect that communications which they, together with other taxpayers, receive in connection with their assessments, or matters arising out of them, come to them in an envelope on the front of which the word "Private" is marked in bold letters. An official of the Inland Revenue would no more think of discussing them other than officially, or of disclosing particulars of any taxpayer's return, than would a doctor think of breaking the confidential relationship existing between himself and his patient. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree with me when I say that the Revenue has set a very high standard in that connection, a standard which I would suggest he has himself maintained on the Floor of the House, when he has refused to discuss references to individual taxpayers. The taxpayer, under the law has a right of appeal to the High Court against certain decisions given by either the General or the Special Commissioners. These appeals are heard in open court, and full details of the appellant's private affairs or of his business transactions may be made public and may be fully reported in the Press.
This, I suggest to the Committee, is undesirable. Not only is it undesirable, it is unfair. It results in a number of taxpayers refraining from exercising their 2179 rights of appeal under the law. Few people like their private and personal affairs to be discussed in public, and rather than submit to this course forgo their rights. The purpose of this Clause is to maintain the privacy of the taxpayer throughout the whole range of tax procedure, and preserve his anonymity in cases of appeal, except where fraud is concerned, because there every possible measure of publicity should be given as a strong deterrent. The procedure suggested in the Clause is not without precedent because I understand that a court often exercises its discretion in certain matrimonial cases where it orders that they shall be reported in terms of letters of the alphabet, and that the identity of the person concerned shall not be disclosed. That procedure is adopted in the interests of justice, and I suggest that similar procedure would be very beneficial in tax cases. I have discussed this matter of reporting with a number of members of the legal profession, and they tell me that they can see no practical objections to it.

§ The Solicitor-General
I have listened with great interest to what my hon. ant gallant Friend has said, but I am afraid that on this point I disagree with his approach. In my view, publicity is a fundamental element in the procedure of the administration of English justice, and I could not willingly agree to any divergence from that position. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to certain cases where the suppression of names is allowed. These are most exceptional and occur only where justice could not, otherwise, adequately be done. He referred to certain very distressing cases in the Divorce Court—he had in mind nullity cases, and cases of that kind—and other particular classes of cases, such as blackmail cases where it would be difficult for the prosecutor to go forward were it not for that lack of publicity. With regard to tax cases, I cannot see how the same position occurs. I ought to say to my hon. and gallant Friend that the Revenue authorities have agreed to it, in cases where the affairs of a lunatic come under discussion, and in cases of that distressing character. Apart from that, it has been suggested on only one occasion and there the Revenue authorities opposed it for the reasons I have given.
2180 I differ from my hon. and gallant Friend on two grounds. One is on the general ground I have stated, that cases of this class should be open to the full light of day. My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the case of fraud. There are also cases where there is a deliberate system of avoidance, presented to the court for determination as to whether that system succeeds. I know cases which have been put forward, quite bluntly, on that basis. I can see no reason why cases of that sort should not receive publicity. However, that is a matter of opinion and my hon. and gallant Friend is entitled to a different opinion if he likes to take it. Between 30 and 40 per cent. of the cases I argue in the High Court turn on the question of whether there is evidence before the Commissioners to justify their decision. If you tried to prevent not only names but particulars calculated to lead to identification of the parties being made public it would make it extremely difficult for the court to decide whether or not there was evidence. Take the class of case where there is a question of whether someone is carrying on a certain trade or not, for instance where a person is carrying on the trade of dealing in land, or is only realising an investment. It is very material that the High Court should know when the land was bought, whether it was development out of Glasgow, Liverpool or London, or wherever it might be, to know the exact position of the land, the circumstances of the purchase and all the details. Quite honestly, and not forensically I cannot see cases being satisfactorily stated to the High Court and yet complying with these grounds, and I imagine that extraordinary controversy would develop between representatives of the taxpayer, the Revenue and the Commissioner's clerk as to what details should or should not be included. Therefore, on the grounds both of principle and practical application, we cannot accept the proposed new Clause.

§ Commander Galbraith
I know that there are two sides to this question. My only reason for bringing it forward is that I know of numerous cases, where taxpayers have not gone to appeal on the grounds I have stated, because there would be disclosure of their private affairs, or because disclosure might be forced on them which would be highly objectionable to them. However, in view 2181 of what the Solicitor-General has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.