HC Deb 18 April 1967 vol 745 cc279-80
11. Mr. Biffen

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will withdraw Inland Revenue Stencil No. 85 issued by Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes, London Provincial 2 District, requesting details of taxpayers' assets; and if he will make a statement.

22. Mr. Nott

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Inland Revenue Stencil No. 85 was used by Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes, London Provincial 2 District, since no statutory authority existed for the information sought; and what action has been taken to prevent a re-occurrence of such incidents.

Mr. MacDermot

The stencil in question was withdrawn from use at the beginning of January.

Mr. Biffen

In view of the Government's unhappy tendency to require the public to regard White Papers as though they had the force of law, will not the hon. and learned Gentleman take this occasion to regret that this stencil, requiring submission by taxpayers for which there was no statutory obligation whatever, was ever issued by the Treasury?

Mr. MacDermot

I take this occasion to thank those hon. Members who have drawn my attention to this point. When the matter was last raised at Question Time I said that I would look at it to see whether any further instruction was required. I have done that, and was so satisfied. A circular has been issued to all tax officers making it clear that they should not give the impression that any statutory authority exists for demanding these lists.

Mr. Nott

Surely there is some cause for regret, and should someone not be reprimanded in this case, where taxpayers have been asked to list their private possessions without statutory authority? Will the Financial Secretary express his regret in this respect?

Mr. MacDermot

There is no occasion for any apology. Many taxpayers and their advisers will think it a useful practice and will continue to supply the information. Certainly I have every intention of doing so myself.

Mrs. Thatcher

Will the Financial Secretary clarify one of his answers. I understood him to say that he had asked inspectors not to give the impression that any statutory authority exists for the question. Is the question still being asked?

Mr. MacDermot

Only in those cases where there is reason to think that such a list has been prepared—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is perfectly common practice for accountants to prepare lists of this kind, and very often it is to the mutual convenience of both the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue for the Revenue to have a copy of that list. In those cases, there is nothing improper in asking for it, and inspectors will be authorised to do so. What is being made clear is that there is no suggestion that there is any legal requirement to supply it.

Mr. Barnett

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, in practice, this sort of thing has gone on for a very long time, to the mutual convenience of taxpayers and the professional men dealing with their affairs?

Mr. MacDermot

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Of course, that is right.