Miners: Tax Rebates (Hansard, 21 May 1984)

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield)
My Lords, the authority is to be found in Section 29 of the Finance Act 1981 and the regulations made thereunder. Any refund due can normally only be made when the employee returns to work.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, in view of the fact that the present Government are continually telling the public and this House that taxation is money belonging to the taxpayer, is not the withholding of the appropriate rebates to non-working miners a blatant act of theft?

§ Lord Cockfield
No, my Lords. Any rebates due will be paid at the end of the strike when the individual returns to work. The matter was, however, debated in full on the Floor of the House in another place in the course of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on 11th May 1981, and the reasons for the change then made in the law were very fully explained by my right honourable and learned friend the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

§ Lord Gormley
My Lords, will the noble Lord tell me why in the case of the miners something has gone wrong? What is the difference between the miners and the rest of the people?

§ Lord Cockfield
My Lords, the change in the law was made three years ago in 1981. There is no difference between the treatment of miners who may be on strike and anybody else who may he on strike.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, is it not reprehensible, especially bearing in mind the reports of manipulation of the social security system against the miners and their families, that the miners should also not now be able to get a rebate of money which belongs to them not only for the current financial year but for the financial year 1983–84? Should not the Government at least pay the amount of money due to the miners for the financial year 1983–84, which would amount to about three or four weeks' rebate?

§ Lord Cockfield
No, my Lords, the position is very clearly laid down in the Finance Act 1981 and the National Coal Board are simply fulfilling the obligations laid upon them by Parliament at that time. The noble Lord was himself at that period a Member of another place and he will realise that a Division was called and the Government were supported by a substantial majority in the Division Lobby.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
Yes, my Lords, but this is a question of miners' families now being not on the breadline but very much below the breadline. Would it not be in the Government's own interest to try to assist in this matter? Otherwise, the charge that they are trying to starve the miners back to work will stick?

§ Lord Cockfield
No, my Lords. That is not so. The change was made in 1981 and it affects everybody on strike. So far as the miners are concerned, the primary responsibility for supporting people on strike clearly rests with the union.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, will my noble friend agree, since the strike is supposed to be about closures—every one of which is foreseen in The Plan for Coal, agreed by successive Governments, the coal board and the NUM—that the short answer is surely to bring the strike to an end?

§ Lord Cockfield
My Lords, I appreciate the comments made by my noble friend, but they do of course go outside the ambit of the Question on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Edmund-Davies
My Lords, I take it that there have been others than miners on strike since Section 29 of the Act of 1981 came into force. For clarification may we be told whether there has been any withholding of rebates from any others than miners since the Act came into force?

§ Lord Cockfield
My Lords, I made it clear in reply to the first supplementary that the change in the law applies to everybody on strike. There is no differentiation between miners and anybody else in this respect.

§ Lord Edmund-Davies
My Lords, as a matter of fact, has there been a withholding from strikers other than miners since Section 29 came in?

§ Lord Cockfield
My Lords, I have obviously not investigated that question, but I find it impossible to believe that, in general, the law has not been strictly followed in all cases.

§ Baroness Gaitskell
My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? He said that there was no difference between the work that miners have to do and the work that other workers have to do—

Noble Lords
No!

§ Baroness Gaitskell
Just a moment. May I ask the Minister whether he has been down a mine? Has he lain on that floor with a ceiling a few inches above him? Has he done that work? Has he brought up the coal? I do not think he has, and I do not agree with him.

§ Lord Cockfield
My Lords, may I be permitted to reciprocate the noble Baroness's comment in the last part of her question? Of course, I appreciate the point that she is making, but I did not in any way deal with the comparative question of work done by miners and work done by other people. The Question relates solely to a point of tax law and I was saying that, so far as tax law is concerned, there is no differentiation between one group in the community and another.

§ The Countess of Mar
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is not only strikers who suffer and that a married woman who gives up her employment, and states specifically to the Inland Revenue that she has no intention of returning to work, may have to wait up to 15 months for an income tax rebate?

§ Lord Cockfield
My Lords, that is an entirely different matter—

Noble Lords
No.

§ Lord Cockfield
My Lords, I was not aware of the fact that any of the ladies to whom the noble Countess was referring were miners or that they were on strike, and those are the questions that are dealt with in the Question on the Order Paper. But if there is any specific case which the noble Countess has in mind, I shall be only too glad to look into it and to communicate with her.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, having already enunciated the taxation principles that are involved in the Question, that there are very often precedents—in fact, there are at the present time—for the taxing statutes to be amended particularly during the passage of the Finance Bill? In view of the fact that the Government have already shown themselves very willing to amend substantially in certain respects the Finance Bill which is currently going through another place, will the noble Lord make representations for this group of people who are on strike and find out whether in the current political, and indeed economic. circumstances it might be wise for the Finance Bill to contain an amendment to the taxation statute?

§ Lord Cockfield
My Lords, as the noble Lord is very well aware, these are matters for another place and not for your Lordships.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister trying to transfer responsibility from the Government to the National Coal Board? In his answer he stated, in an aside, that this was the way in which the National Coal Board was acting. Surely it is the Treasury which is acting in this way and which must take the responsibility. If that is the case, is it not clear that this is one further tactic of the Government to starve the miners and their families into submitting to a policy laid down by this Government?

§ Lord Cockfield
My Lords, I made it clear that the National Coal Board were simply carrying out their obligations under the statute. The responsibility for the content of the statute is not a matter for the Treasury but for Parliament. Parliament took a vote on this matter. I would suggest that the noble Lord should read the debate which took place on 11th May 1981.

§ Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what, to the last available date, is the total sum due by way of rebate to coal miners who are now on strike?

§ Lord Cockfield
No, my Lords. I am not in a position to give that information. The only relevant comment which I would make is that in respect of the period after 5th April no refunds would have been due. because no tax would have been paid by people on strike at that date.