HC Deb 21 October 1968 vol 770 cc869-70
16. Mr. Costain

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many cases of Selective Employment Tax have so far been heard by tribunals under the procedure laid down in Section 7 of the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966; and how many such cases have been referred to the courts.

Mr. Hattersley

By 30th September, 1968, 1,094 cases under the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966, had been heard by industrial tribunals. Of these, 47 had been taken on appeal to the courts.

Mr. Costain

Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that this is a further example of what a silly tax S.E.T. is? Does she realise that it is one of the causes of rising unemployment? Would she now accept that she is giving employment to lawyers, instead of to those who are really producing?

Mr. Hattersley

That is in no way revealed by the answer, and even if the supplementary question was in any way relevant the answer to it would be "No."

17. Mr. Holland

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, what assessment she has made on the impact of Selective Employment Tax on the employment of part-time workers; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Hattersley

As the House is aware, provision was made in the Finance Acts of 1967 and 1968 in respect of part-time employees, which were aimed to discourage any tendency for employers in the tax bearing industries to discharge such workers. In the absence of any comprehensive statistics of part-time employment no quantitative assessment of the effect of Selective Employ- ment Tax can be made, but the indications are that the objects of these provisions are being achieved.

Mr. Holland

As this particular part of the Tax seems to bear most harshly on women who have to seek part-time employment, because of home responsibilities, can the hon. Gentleman say what representations the Minister has made to the Chancellor, in order to obtain some modification on this part of the Tax?

Mr. Hattersley

I hope that I do the hon. Gentleman no disservice by saying that his supplementary question implies that he does not know what was provided for in the 1967–68 Finance Acts, which is the refund in tax-bearing sectors for part-timers doing less than 21 hours a week. Surely that is the result of the sort of representations he would like us to make—made two or three years ago.