§ 42. Sir H. Williamsasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the cheques sent to the Accountant and Controller General at Worthing are in the first place acknowledged by a document which is stated not to be a receipt and is then followed several days later by a document containing exactly the same information, but which states itself to be a receipt; and if he will take steps to eliminate this duplication of effort.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe procedure described by my hon. Friend applies only in a small minority of cases, generally where the taxpayer does not send with the remittance the pay slip or other identification of the particular liability in respect of which the remittance is sent. In such cases it is thought courteous and efficient to tell the taxpayer at once that his remittance has been received. An acknowledgement is therefore sent and a formal receipt follows when the liability has been identified.
§ Sir H. WilliamsIs my hon. Friend aware that his answer is in fact—I am sorry to say it—totally inaccurate? Does he know of any firm in Britain which sends two communications to acknowledge one cheque?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI know of no firm in Britain which will give a receipt in respect of a liability which has not yet been identified.
§ Sir H. WilliamsHaving regard to the fact that I know of a number of cases where there is complete identification, and having regard to the fact that several years ago I had an entirely different explanation, would my hon. Friend look into this matter again, because it means a whole lot of clerks are wasting time?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI have no desire for anybody to waste their time, but I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the fact that he has had a different reply on this occasion indicates that we live in a progressive world.