HL Deb 30 March 1993 vol 544 cc725-8

3.9 p.m.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill)

My Lords, I beg to move that the fourth report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.

Moved, That the fourth report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 72).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:

1. Parliamentary Works Programme

The Committee endorsed the use of a ten year rolling programme as the basis of the annual works programmes and PES bids. It agreed that the substantial backlog of conservation and maintenance work should be made good as quickly as practical and that the necessary funds should be provided. It also agreed that funds should be made available for new works in the South East Return in the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95.

2. New Civil Service pay schemes

The Committee approved in principle proposals, currently under discussion with unions and staff, for the adaptation of new Civil Service pay schemes to the circumstances of the House of Lords, subject to the satisfactory outcome of the consultations.

3. New secretarial grading structures

The Committee approved the introduction of a new secretarial grading structure, based on that already in place in the House of Commons, and the upgrading of certain posts in order to create a better career structure.

4. Refreshment Department profit-sharing scheme

The Committee approved the introduction, with effect from the 1993–94 financial year, of a profit-sharing scheme for staff in the Refreshment Department. The scheme will be financed from the Department's Trading Fund.

5. Security manning review

The Committee approved a series of measures to improve security by more efficient and cost effective use of manpower and technical resources.

6. Taxation of official residences

The Committee agreed arrangements to meet the tax liability, under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, of occupants in respect of official residences on the parliamentary estate.

7. Works of Art Collection Fund

The Committee approved the setting up of a Works of Art Collection Fund and a memorandum describing the arrangements which will govern it.

8. Nominations to the Board of POST

The Committee agreed that the Lords members of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) should be selected by the Committee of Selection under the provisions of Standing Order 61(5A).

9. Car Parking

The Committee took note of the provision of additional car parking space in the vicinity of the House.

10. Appointments and promotions

The Committee was informed of—

  1. (a) the appointment of Mrs P.J. Woolgar as Shorthand Writer to the House with effect from 1 April 1993 in the place of Mrs E.M.C. Holland who retires on 31 March 1993;
  2. (b) the appointment of Miss Margaret Douglas, Chief Political Adviser to the BBC, as Supervisor of Parliamentary Broadcasting with effect from June 1993 in the place of Mr John Grist;
  3. (c) the promotion of Dr. F.P. Tudor to Chief Clerk with effect from 15 February 1993.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, I have a short technical point to raise with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees concerning paragraph 6 of the fourth report which states: The Committee agreed arrangements to meet the tax liability, under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, of occupants in respect of official residences on the parliamentary estate". I am unaware of the identity of the occupants and have no wish in any way to criticise them or to worsen their financial situation.

I ask whether the previous occupants received exactly the same benefits under agreed arrangements, or whether this is something entirely new. If it is entirely new, I first of all draw the attention of the House to the fact that in suitable cases where the condition applies, it is always open to the occupant to dispute any Inland Revenue assessment as to benefit on the grounds that it is necessarily, compulsorily, as a condition of his job that he occupies the official residence; and that under the normal Schedule E expense rules any benefit he receives must be wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of his duties. If those considerations apply to any of the occupants, there is no necessity for any arrangements for the House or its funds to reimburse the occupants concerned, since they will be entitled to relief.

If on the other hand those conditions do not apply, I may draw the attention of the House to the fact that the many high officers of state, including many prominent politicians and Cabinet Ministers, already pay tax for the benefits that they receive by reason of occupying official residences. I name, for example, Admiralty House, where I understand certain Ministers have pied-a-terre facilities and various benefits of that kind. I also believe, though I am not quite certain, that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are accountable for any benefits they receive.

Therefore, I wonder whether there are any special reasons why that tax liability should be met. I sincerely hope that none of the occupants is known to me personally and will not strike me down in lightning for raising the point. But it is a matter upon which the House should be informed and, I hope, reassured.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, it is entirely understandable that the noble Lord raises the matter. The situation that has arisen is a new one. The Inland Revenue has changed its practice. On account of that, and in the Eight of the fact that the other place decided that as this came as a surprise, it was felt to be fair for the time being—it is not necessarily for the indefinite future—that the House should reimburse those people who were "caught by surprise". I think that is a reasonable way to describe it.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, perhaps I may question the noble Lord a little further. From what he has said—and I am most grateful for his reply—I gather that the Inland Revenue has had a change of practice. Has it had repealed some statutory obligations which it already had? By whose consent was that change of mind accomplished? And is there any particular reason why the other place (which is ultimately the supreme arbiter of all such matters) should so willingly concur in a change of practice? Did the Inland Revenue give any particular reason, supported by any case law or commissioner decisions, in favour of changing its practice?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, the noble Lord is so much better informed than I am about matters to do with accountancy. It is a question of the interpretation of the law as it stands. As he is aware, the Inland Revenue is wont to take a different view once in a while about its past practices. This is something it has decided to do. It is in accordance with the law. It may indeed eventually be tested by the courts if it is thought that in any way the Inland Revenue is outside its rights. It is thought to be within its rights to interpret the matter in this way.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees whether that applies only in the case of existing employees, or whether it will extend to new employees when the existing holders of the posts leave them.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I have already said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that this is not an open-ended commitment for the indefinite future. It will be reviewed.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, that does not answer my question. "Open-ended" can mean 50 years or 100 years. I want to know whether it will be extended beyond the period of employment of the existing staff who will enjoy the benefit.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, no decision has yet been made on that point. I believe it must be left for further consideration. It came as a surprise to the Finance and Staff Committee. Therefore, I believe that further consideration should be given to the matter, if the noble Lord will be so kind as to leave it like that.

On Question, Motion agreed to.