HL Deb 15 January 1985 vol 458 cc870-3

2.54 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of their Answer of December 13th (Official Report, col. 423), it would not be a proper exercise of the sovereignty of Parliament to pass legislation designed to make it possible for a taxpayer, subject to safeguards similar to those applied to persons seeking exemption from military services on conscientious grounds, to direct that the part of his or her income tax which would normally be devoted to military expenditure be directed instead to a non-military peace-building fund.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie)

No, my Lords.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, will the noble Earl reconsider his rather sharp negative to this Question? Is he not aware that it is considered appropriate in the case of persons with conscientious objection to provide special provision so that they do not have to undertake military service? In view of this special provision which is made for persons with conscientious objection in this category, would it not also be reasonable to make a special concession for those who have to pay for the cost of that military service?

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, the noble Lord is famous for his sense of humour but I fear that on this occasion he must be indulging it at the public expense. The obligation to pay taxes (as he knows well as a former Minister) is a general one which has no specific conscientious implications in itself in the sense that no part of any individual's taxes can be said to fund or not to fund a particular item of public spending.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that two officials of the religious Society of Friends (Quakers) will appear in the courts next week, being responsible as employers for the staff of Friends House who have withheld tax as suggested in the Question asked? May I ask the Minister whether he will read the evidence which will be presented in the court to see how far the admirable provisions in our constitution for conscientious objection may be taken into account in the framing of our tax laws in the future? I emphasise that I am making no comment on the action that is being taken, but I would ask the Minister to look at this particular case.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I am happy, as always, to take the noble Lord's advice, and I certainly have no intention of commenting upon a case which may be before the courts. But I would point out to the noble Lord and to the House that there was a recent case before the European Commission of Human Rights which concerned the individual's right to divert a proportion of tax to a peace-building fund, in that particular instance. The Commission said a number of things, but they also said that if an applicant considers the obligation to contribute through taxation to arms procurement an outrage to his or her conscience, he or she may advertise the attitude and thereby try to obtain support for it through the democratic process. That remains the situation.

Lord Harvington

My Lords, if my noble friend the Minister were to give way to this Question, which the questioner seems to desire, where would it end? Would not the League against Cruel Sports and the Support ers of the organisation for the protection of cats, and so forth, all claim that on moral grounds they ought to have exemption from income tax?

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I think my noble friend is quite right. The questioner, in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and I might both come out badly as previous and present Arts Ministers.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney would not expect me to follow him down the road of the hypothecation of revenues, but would the Minister not agree that the question that my noble friend has raised reflects the growing abhorrence of people against weapons of mass destruction and genocide, such as Trident? In these circumstances would the Government not be seen in a more favourable light if they abandoned this project, which is now estimated to cost twice the £5,000 million which the Government put forward originally?

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I have seldom heard a supplementary question so far wide of the original Question. I suggest that the noble Lord, with his experience and his contacts, studies the record of the Government which he used to support.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, with reference to the text of this Question—and I refer to the Question itself—is it not inappropriate to use the word "building" in conjunction with the word "peace"? Is it not right that one can keep or breach the peace, or offer to make peace, but can one build it?

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I think I must resist making a comment on the noble Lord's supplementary question, but, as one who has worked in your Lordships' House for 15 years, I have during that time, on issues of nomenclature, always taken the advice of the noble Lord who asked the last question. I intend to go on doing so.

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, would my noble friend agree that that part of Lord Jenkins's taxes or other taxpayers' taxes which goes to maintain deterrence against potential aggressors probably does more, and is more willingly paid by the mass of taxpayers, than almost any other part of taxation, and that those taxes to maintain deterrence are more likely to maintain peace in Europe than are many of the noble Lord's Questions?

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I agree very profoundly and personally as a child of military parents and as someone born at the beginning of the last war who has now reached middle age during a period of peace.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I think the noble Earl will agree that this Question appears to be a little in advance of what noble Lords are at present prepared to agree to. Nevertheless, I think he will accept that, while he and I are agreed about the desirability of the maximum possible expenditure on the arts, on this issue, having regard to that qualification in the Question that there should be safeguards similar to those applying to persons seeking exemption from military service, this is a matter which the noble Earl will be required to reconsider at a future date.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I think that very unlikely. It would surely completely undermine the sovereignty of Parliament, which the noble Lord mentioned in his Question, to allow sections of the community to decide that they did not accept Parliament's decisions on overall public spending.

Lord Leatherland

My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether it is a fact that the armed services are protecting conscientious objectors in the event of war and that therefore their services are worthy of support?

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right.