INCOME TAX (Hansard, 8 March 1979)

§ Mr. Higgins

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the need to review the Inland Revenue's decision to negotiate an agreement with trade unions on individuals' alleged evasion of income tax so that they are thus excused payment and are not subject to criminal penalties. My application arises from a report late last night on television, and in the press today, that casual workers in Fleet Street who are members of trade unions are to be given a tax amnesty.

I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker, because there are important matters for debate on the Order Paper. I do not wish to discuss the substantive issues but simply to persuade you that a debate on this subject should be given priority over other matters.

I have to convince you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is urgent, specific and important. It may not be immediately apparent why the matter is so urgent. The reason why I have brought the matter before the House at the earliest possible moment is that, if we do not review it, an important and dangerous precedent will have been created by administrative action.

Alternatively, the House would be faced with the difficult task of reversing retrospectively a concession which the Inland Revenue had made to taxpayers, and that is something which the House has always been very reluctant to do. I fully appreciate that we have before the House the Ghost Workers (Abolition) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I hope that it will proceed and make rapid progress, but it does not cover the point about urgency that I wish to stress.

I do not think that there can be any doubt whatever, Mr. Speaker, on the question whether the matter is specific, because the Inland Revenue has made an administrative decision and has announced it.

I turn, therefore, to the question whether the matter is important. I believe that this decision of the Inland Revenue 1503 is vitally important because it fundamentally affects the equitable basis on which our tax system operates and, indeed, the whole question whether individuals are equal before the law.

I am not proposing that we should debate the tax affairs of any individual. That would be contrary to the practices of the House. What we should debate is the fact that the Inland Revenue has apparently negotiated with certain trade unions on a matter which concerns individuals and their liability under the law. It is that aspect on which I concentrate.

I understand that a spokesman for the Inland Revenue has said that what has been done is not without precedent. It is true that the Inland Revenue has administrative discretion in individual cases. That is a different matter from negotiating with trade unions a blanket amnesty of this kind, and I believe that that goes far beyond any discretion which this House should give a Government Department.

It is a matter not for administrative action but for legislation. That being so, it is overwhelmingly important that we should debate this matter at the earliest moment, otherwise we are in danger of having one tax law for trade unionists and another for everyone else. There is much dispute in the House about the rule of law and its relation to trade union affairs. It is true that trade unions, in a number of respects, are in a privileged position in the civil and criminal law. But no one can argue that it is right that a trade union should be able to negotiate individual tax returns on behalf of its members. This seems to be wholly unreasonable.

I understand that a letter has been sent by the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades to its members. I shall not quote it at length because if my application is granted I shall return to it in the debate. One paragraph reads: We fully appreciate that a casual may find himself in something of a dilemma if he has not paid tax properly in the past and now wants to put matters in order. He may fear the consequences. What we are saying to him is that if there is a general acceptance of new procedures and if he co-operates fully with the Revenue, we "— that is, SOGAT— will release him from most of the liabilities which the Revenue could demand. 1504 That is an extraordinary situation for the House of Commons to be faced with.

We all know from experience that not infrequently the Inland Revenue pursues its tax demands with the utmost rigour, not only in cases of evasion and avoidance, but when a mistake has been made by the Inland Revenue itself. Those cases are pursued, as are those cases when payment of tax has been evaded. We are talking here of evasion, which is a criminal offence. Avoidance is not a criminal offence. In this instance people are being excused, and it seems to me grossly unfair to those who have paid their tax legitimately, including those in Fleet Street.

I gave previous notice that I wished to raise this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I have not had the opportunity of deploying the case. There is an overwhelming case for this matter to be debated by the House at the earliest opportunity. I hope you will agree to that.