HC Deb 13 May 1976 vol 911 cc646-7
1. Mr. William Clark

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many extra civil servants will be required to carry out the extra rights of entry into taxpayers' premises as intimated in the current Finance Bill.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon)

None, Sir. As my right hon. Friend said in the Second Reading debate on 3rd May, the proposed powers of entry would be used at the most in a handful of cases annually.

Mr. Clark

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this snoopers' charter is deeply resented throughout the country? Will he say whether calling for these powers is part of the preparation for the introduction of a wealth tax?

Mr. Sheldon

No. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman trying to seek any connection of that kind. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he envisages the powers being used at most in a handful of the most serious cases each year.

Mr. Jay

Am I right in thinking that any taxpayer who keeps within the law has nothing to fear from these proposals?

Mr. Sheldon

My right hon. Friend is correct. There are expected to be only a handful of cases. The measure is a means of achieving equity between taxpayers who pay their taxes each year and those who seek to evade their responsibilities.

Mr. Rathbone

Can the Minister deny my hon. Friend's suggestion that there is a connection between these snoopers and the wealth tax?

Mr. Sheldon

I have made it clear that the problem is that of increasing evasion of Inland Revenue taxation and that as a result we are taking the measures. required. It is the minimum that ought to be acceptable in view of the problems that are often raised with us.

Mr. Madden

Does my hon. Friend agree that the enormous cost to the nation

of tax evasion is more widely resented by working people than are these powers? Does he agree that when one compares the handful of cases brought against those who evade taxation with the enormous number of proceedings because of abuses of the social security system, abuses which cost the nation less, greater vigilance is needed?

Mr. Sheldon

My hon. Friend is right. There is increasing resentment at the disparity of treatment between those who claim in excess of what they should receive in social security benefits and those who claim very large sums of money at other taxpayers' expense. Our measures are intended to rectify that wide difference.

Mr. David Howell

Will the Minister bear in mind the vast army of moonlighters, to which the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) rightly drew attention the other day? Is he aware that we find this clause in the Finance Bill deeply objectionable? Will he ask his right hon. Friend about an incident the other day when his right hon. Friend read out a large chunk of a speech which turned out to be a verbatim report of the words of the General Secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation? The right hon. Gentleman owes us an explanation. Please may we have one?

Mr. Sheldon

My right hon. Friend has commented on that in the House on previous occasions. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the whole clause is subject to debate in the House. Proposals have been put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), and will be discussed in the debate. What we are concerned with here is trying to reduce the amount of erosion of taxpayers' normal responsibilities and I should have thought that in that we should have the support of the whole House.