§ 2. Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to legislate to make trade union payments to pickets, not employees of the employer whose premises are being picketed, subject to income tax.
§ Mr. RidleyIs the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with a tax system whereby those who go to work are eventually taxed out of existence while those who try to prevent other people from going to work get off scot-free?
§ Mr. BarnettThe hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts.
§ Mr. James LamondWill my right hon. Friend tell me why Questions like this come from Opposition Members when they tell us that they are dedicated both to the reduction of personal taxation and to wooing the trade union movement?
§ Mr. BarnettMy hon. Friend is right. It is interesting to note the views of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). It would be even more interesting to know whether those views are shared by right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench. If they are, it is a good job that the Opposition are not in command of industrial relations in this country.
§ Mr. Peter ReesWhatever the legal basis for the Chief Secretary's answer to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Circencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) does it possibly strike the right hon. Gentleman as unfair that, while the items of income to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention may or may not be subject to tax, other items, such as payments made to the Territorial Army perhaps for assistance in fighting fires, should be taxed?
§ Mr. BarnettAs the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are many anomalies in our tax system, including 1622 the fact that very many highly paid people obtain benefits that are not taxed.