Inland Revenue (Staff) (Hansard, 23 May 1972)

§ 8. Mr. Sydney Chapman
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total number of civil servants needed to administer the new value added tax and proposed unified income and surtax systems with tax credits when introduced; and how this figure compares with the number needed to administer selective employment tax, purchase tax and income and surtax in mid-1970.

§ Mr. Nott
I cannot give estimates in the form requested, because the responsibilities of staff engaged on these taxes extend to other taxes as well. But as my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, staff savings could well exceed 10,000 by the time the tax reform programme is complete.—[Vol. 835, c. 882–3.]

§ Mr. Chapman
Will my hon. Friend confirm that, when this radical reform of the taxation system is completed, it will be not only more equitable but easier to administer and simpler to understand? Does he agree that it will be very welcome if the ever-increasing escalation in the number of civil servants is at least halted by these radical reforms?

§ Mr. Nott
The details of one aspect of the tax reform programme, the tax credit scheme, will be spelled out for the consideration of the House and the general public in a Green Paper to be published later in the year. We hope that this scheme will represent a real simplification and not a mere redistribution of the work load. We are talking of a reduction of between 10,000 and 15,000 civil servants during this period.

§ Mr. Sheldon
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House will find it difficult to understand why a tax which is easier to administer will require 6,000 extra civil servants? Is he aware that even without them the number of civil servants is greater than when the Government took office? How does that fit in with the Tory election pledge to reduce the number of civil servants?

§ Mr. Nott
The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we are introducing the value added tax, which I think is what he referred to in the first part of his question, because we believe it to be a better tax. The wider question of the number of civil servants generally is obviously one for the Civil Service Department, and the Parliamentary Secretary to that Department, and not for me.