EXCISE BETTING DUTY (PAYMENT)

HC Deb 26 November 1969 vol 792 cc424-8

Mr. Iain Macleod (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the payment of excise betting duties under the Finance Act, 1969, in view of the observations of the Lord Chief Justice.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins)

The Divisional Court yesterday refused an application by two bookmakers for an Order of Mandamus in this matter. In September, following a meeting of the bookmaking and other racing interests with my right hon. Friend the then Financial Secretary, I decided to make a concession allowing the licence duty to be paid in monthly instalments. This was accepted at the meeting as a helpful alleviation.

In view of the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice, I will now consider whether the concession can be maintained, although I must tell the House that there would be considerable administrative difficulty, as well as inconvenience, to say the least, to the great majority of bookmakers, in rescinding it.

I apologise to the House for being in the position, perhaps unusual for a Chancellor, of straining the law in favour of the taxpayer. No one has suffered by reason of what has occurred except to a small extent the Revenue.

Mr. Macleod

Does not the Chancellor agree that the story is a little more complicated than that? The right hon. Gentleman has started it as from September. Is he aware that in Committee on the Finance Bill on 11th June, 1969, with support from both sides, I moved an Amendment concerning the precise point of monthly payments and on 16th July, on Report, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, rejecting an Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), said that for technical and administrative reasons it simply could not be done?

My first Question, therefore, is to ask the Chancellor to explain to the House why something which, in the House of Commons in June and July, was said to be technically and administratively impossible becomes feasible after a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and the Horserace Betting Levy Board in September.

Secondly, does not the Chancellor realise that it is a most serious matter when, even with excellent intentions, which in this case I do not in the least dispute. a Minister tries by his own Ministerial edict to overrule both the law and Parliament? Does not the Chancellor realise that in those circumstances it is an error so to do?

Mr. Jenkins

In reply to the first point, we try to do better as time goes on. I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that although he very reasonably led his right hon. and hon. Friends in voting against us many times in Committee and on Report, they did not do so on this issue.

In reply to the second point, I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and what has been said, and that I must curb my good intentions in future. Generosity can be dangerous.

Mr. Macleod

May I press the right hon. Gentleman on one matter which he has not answered? We did not vote on this matter because of the assurance given by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the proposal was technically and administratively impossible. That was what Parliament was told, and on that basis Parliament made up its collective mind. The point which has now arisen is that the Chancellor, by his own edict, is attempting to get round the law.

Mr. Jenkins

I was only attempting, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware and, indeed, recognises, "to get round the law" to alleviate genuine difficulty.

Mr. Cant

Without holding any brief for bookmakers, may I ask my right hon. Friend to do everything possible to meet the bookmakers in this matter if there are not insuperable legal obstacles? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] This is an unfair tax. Not only that, but it will lead to a loss of revenue in the long run for local authorities.

Mr. Jenkins

That is a much wider issue. Although I normally agree with my hon. Friend, I do not agree with him on that. Without question, what was done—whether it was wise or not—was to attempt to meet a bookmaker's difficulty. Certainly, the lesson I draw is that it is perhaps dangerous to be too generous to bookmakers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Is the Chancellor aware that in its recent report, the Public Accounts Committee criticised both the Revenue and the Customs for granting tax concessions which, however benevolent in intention, were made without statutory authority? As the observations of the Lord Chief Justice, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has referred, are of a general character, will the Chancellor now proceed to put these concessions on a proper statutory basis and subject ot the consent of Parliament?

Mr. Jenkins

I will certainly take that into account, although the history of extra-statutory concessions of the sort to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is a long one going back under many Chancellorships and several Administrations. The right hon. Gentleman has to some extent put the matter into perspective by referring to the wide range of extra-statutory concessions which already exist.

Mr. Sheldon

Surely my right hon. Friend is only following a long and honourable tradition of allowing time for payment as and when the Department can so organise it.

Mr. Jenkins

Certainly, the desire is to allow time for payment, although the question is how this stands exactly technically in relation to the Statute.

Dame Irene Ward

As the Chancellor has not answered my right hon. Friend's specific question, would he kindly inform the House whether it is usual for the Treasury to make a habit of giving the answer that things are technically and administratively possible when it either does not want to deal with the matter or thinks that that is a more sympathetic answer which will soothe the House into acceptance of the point of view expressed?

Mr. Jenkins

No, not at all. Some things are technically and administratively impracticable. Indeed, I notice that there is a report to the House, published today, on this very matter.

Mr. Barnett

May I ask my right hon. Friend not to allow the Scrooge-like attitude of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) to prevent him continuing what has been going on for a long time, whereby tax collectors on occasion adopt a somewhat flexible and understandable approach? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in questions of income tax and corporation tax, for example, particularly in present liquidity shortages, he will not stop tax collectors giving the concessions which they have been giving for a long time?

Mr. Jenkins

I do not think that that arises absolutely directly on the question which has been asked. I would certainly have no immediate intention of proceeding in the direction which my hon. Friend has mentioned and which would, I am sure, be unwelcome to right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Members opposite.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Is the Chancellor aware that, quite apart from the technical and legal points made by my right hon. Friend, many of us object to the language which the right hon. Gentleman used in his original reply? To call this a "concession" when it is merely extending the payment of a tax which is unfair and extortionate really is straining the English language.

Mr. Jenkins

No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman thought that the tax was unfair and unreasonable he should have voted against it.

Mr. Dalyell

Has my right hon. Friend any notion of the administrative cost involved? And will not some of the remarks from the other side of the House come rather strangely from a party which is always lecturing us on cutting the Civil Service?

Mr. Jenkins

I cannot give an estimate to my hon. Friend in reply to his first question, but I take note of the point in his second.

Mr. Lubbock

Did the Chancellor know that it was the officially declared policy of the Tory Party to mitigate the harmful effects of taxation? In view of that, is it not rather surprising that so many criticisms are directed from this side of the House to the concession?

Mr. Jenkins

I have long since given up attempting to find consistency in the policies of the Tory Party.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Will the Chancellor bear in mind that this is another example of the tendency, which is on the increase, of the Treasury to disregard this House? Would he, particularly in this context, reconsider the evidence given to the Select Committee on Science and Technology by the Clerk of the House on this subject?

Mr. Jenkins

I have no desire at all to disregard this House. Indeed, in what I am doing here I am following a suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman said was made by him.

On the specific point of the evidence to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, although I am sure it is of importance I do not believe that it arises specifically on this Private Notice Question.