HC Deb 01 July 1969 vol 786 cc224-5
17. Mr. Hector Hughes

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet considered the representations made to him by the General Council of the Bar requesting amendment of Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1956, relating to the nature and amount of relief for qualifying premiums in order to bring the relevant statutory provisions into line with the increase in the cost of living since 1956; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Taverne

I have written to my hon. and learned Friend explaining that I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said when this matter was discussed in Committee on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Hughes

Does my hon. Friend realise that it is a pity that he cannot add to that Answer, since Section 23 as it stands is inflicting great hardship and injustice on an important element of the administration of justice in this country? Will he consult the Attorney-General with a view to rectifying this position?

Mr. Taverne

There are two answers to my hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question. The first is that a general review of the taxation treatment of superannuation arrangements is going on; and the matter which he has raised should obviously be dealt with in that context. The second is that, while there is some hardship, it is, on the whole, affecting those earning more than £7,500 a year.

Mr. Waddington

Has the Minister really got his heart in the right place in dealing with this matter? Does he genuinely believe that it is a good thing to encourage private provision for old age, or does he believe it to be something which runs counter to his Socialist philosophy? If he believes in it, will he back up his beliefs by some action?

Mr. Taverne

If the hon. Gentleman had read the reply of the Financial Secretary in Committee when the Finance Bill was under discussion he would have seen that this issue received sympathetic treatment from my right hon. Friend. This is something which one would like to see helped but one must have regard to priorities, and the first priorities are not necessarily concerned with those who have very high income levels.

Forward to