asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce tax incentives to induce men to retire at 60 years of age if they wish.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce into the tax system such general incentives.

In spite of that unsatisfactory answer, I congratulate the Minister and his right hon. Friends on being present in the House not only to present the Budget but to implement it with support from both sides of the House. When the Government consider their Budget, either alone or in conjunction with anybody else, will they consider whether, at this time of high unemployment among young people, a way could be found of helping men aged over 60 who are ailing and desperate to retire to be able to do so? Will the Government bear in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) and I have now collected a million signatures on our petition asking for voluntary retirement for men at the age of 60?

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his support. I hope that it is as widespread as he claims. On the need for old people to make way for younger ones, I remind my hon. Friend that the job release scheme goes some way in that direction.

In view of the forecast that there will be an increasing number of retired persons, and more young people undergoing full-time education, thereby increasing the burden that will fall on a diminishing number of workers, will the Minister exercise caution before encouraging people to retire too early?

The House fully understands the general point that in normal times we need all the active work from all sections of the community that we can obtain. This would be diminished if we promoted schemes for early retirement more generally, and that is a consideration that the Government must always bear in mind.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in considering such matters his Department and the Chancellor would be better served if they consulted people such as myself who have an alternative economic strategy to present, rather than consulting the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), which could lead only to disaster? Will the Minister meet with us more, because I am sure that a better policy would result from such meetings?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I should be more than delighted to consult him and that there is an open door into my office on any day of the week. I have always held the view that the greatest possible amount of consultation is the most effective way to good legislation, and that remains my view.

Does the Minister agree that flexible retirement arrangements—which do not always mean early retirement—should be encouraged where-ever possible? Will he ensure that no obstacle is put in the way of an employer who wishes to introduce arrangements similar to those now being introduced for the mineworkers?

I am sure that the flexible retirement schemes that so many firms undertake are in the interests of both employers and employees, and it is for them to come to their own arrangements about what best suits the particular industry in which they both have a part to play.

Is the Minister aware that the Chancellor is due to celebrate his sixtieth birthday on 30th August this year? While I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing the Chancellor a long and happy life, is the Minister aware that we intend so to arrange things that the Chancellor will need no fiscal inducement to lay down his heavy burden well before that date?

I can assure the House that when the Chancellor's sixtieth birthday arrives he will be in harness, working for the good of the Government and of the people.

Order. I ought to have declared an interest in this Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of "Accountancy Age" are taken by his Department.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of "Accountancy Age" are taken by his Department.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of "Accountancy Age" are taken by his Department.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of "Accountancy Age" are taken by his Department.

One.

Has my right hon. Friend read that one copy, and has he observed the account of the incredibly complex price-fixing agreement between the sugar refiners and the equally complex price equalisation scheme operated by the Government? While no blame apparently attaches to Tate and Lyle, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that, with all these complexities, the taxpayer's interest is being adequately safeguarded in assessing taxes and subsidies for the sugar refiners?

I read the article about Tate and Lyle, and the Comptroller and Auditor General has reported on the case. If the Public Accounts Committee decides to report upon it to the House, I am sure that hon. Members will want to take that opportunity to discuss the matter further.

Is it not significant that this large private enterprise company, one of the most virulent anti-nationalisation companies in the country with its Mr. Cube campaign, is only too happy to take great handouts from the State when the occasion arises so that shareholders' funds can benefit, in this case to the tune of £600 million?

I not only read the edition of "Accountancy Age" to which my hon. Friends have referred but the following week's edition, which withdrew everything that had been said the previous week. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend, and it is right that the taxpayer's interest should be carefully taken into account. I am sure that the Comptroller and Auditor General has done that in his report. If the PAC decides to submit the matter to the House, we shall have an opportunity to study it further.

Will my right hon. Friend consider trying to persuade Tate and Lyle to put a simple statement of the firm's financial position on its bags of sugar so that consumers can see what is going on?

That is an interesting suggestion. I am sure that the board of Tate and Lyle will have noted it, and I hope that it will take account of it.

Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House who bore the cost of restocking the nation's stockpile of sugar following the loans to the sugar companies, particularly Tate and Lyle? Does he agree that there are still grounds for disquiet owing to the complexity of Tate and Lyle's accounting procedures and the complexity of the issues involved? Will he ensure that, in future, Tate and Lyle presents its accounts in a simple, straightforward way in order to make clear to everyone the extent to which the firm relies on Government support?

The presentation of public companies' accounts fascinates me every bit as much as it does my hon. Friends. I should like to see such accounts presented more simply, but at the moment there is much consideration of presenting them in, if anything, a more complex way. However, I am sure that they will be crystal clear to my hon. Friend however they are presented. On the question of who benefits, I should remind the House that some of the major beneficiaries were the developing countries, for which we ensured very generous prices.

I declare an interest. Is it not appalling that Labour Members should indulge in accusations of guilt by association when the PAC has dismissed all the charges mentioned in this publication and The Times has categorically denied its own misleading report on the subject? Will the right hon. Gentleman deny the sort of implications that his hon. Friends are making?

I do not propose to deny or support anything until I see the report of the PAC. That is the sensible way for the House to deal with this matter. I note the hon. Gentleman's views about guilt by association.

Would the right hon. Gentleman care to take this opportunity to advise companies such as Tate and Lyle which may fear nationalisation that, as long as this Parliament lasts and the agreement between the Government and the Liberal Party continues, there is no fear of any nationalisation?

Well spoken, comrade.

I note the hon. Gentleman's views, and I am always happy to consult him on this and other matters.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it your intention in future, despite the Questions on the Order Paper, to call five Government supporters and only one supporter of this side of the House?

The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. Last week the same thing happened in reverse. I try to be as fair as I can, and I called two hon. Members from the Opposition Benches to put supplementary questions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in framing his forthcoming Budget, he will take into consideration the increasing cost of rail fares and the need to give some assistance to rail commuters; if he will study the tax relief that is provided in other countries; and if he will make a statement.

I am aware of the considerations to which the hon. Member draws attention, but I do not think that it would be right to single out this particular form of personal expenditure for tax relief.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that fares have risen much faster than earnings or the cost of living generally and that this has caused considerable hardship for hundreds of thousands of people? Is he further aware that there is now ample evidence that the railways are losing a great deal of revenue as a result of this? There are schemes of this sort in many other European countries. Therefore, should not the Government at least make a proper examination of this proposal so that its full costs can be ascertained, bearing in mind that if they do not do so the railways will continue to lose revenue from this source and the hardship for many people will continue?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's general point. It has been put to the Government from time to time. However, where a person lives is largely a question of personal choice and it would be wrong to expect one taxpayer to subsidise another for living in a particular area. These are matters for election by the person concerned. That is the way that all Governments have so considered they should remain.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are people, with other incomes, who are getting a tax-free allowance equivalent to as much as £100 per day gross and also receiving tax-free travel allowances—which even hon. Members do not receive? Why should their Lordships be so favourably treated? Why are they allowed to get away with it while other workers by hand and brain are not? There are peers drawing an allowance which is equivalent to £100 a day gross as well as getting tax-free travel allowances.

I am aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes. The allowances for Members of the House of Lords are designed to cover their expenses. Those who hold directorships or who work in industry will be covered by the general tax laws, and recent legislation on benefits in kind will apply equally to them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing employers who wish to do so to issue vouchers to assist their employees to travel to and from work and to allow the total cost to be offset against corporation tax, as can be done to a limited extent with luncheon vouchers?

Luncheon vouchers have always been in an anomalous position, and it is not intended to extend that sort of anomaly. This is a large element of discretionary expenditure and it would be wrong to complicate the tax laws to allow for it.

While it may be true that where a person lives is a matter of personal choice, is my right hon. Friend aware that it is no longer a matter of personal choice for many people where they work and that they are having to travel increasing distances because of factory closures? While there is a need to look at fares, does my right hon. Friend agree that subsidising rail but not bus fares through tax cuts or any other means would be grossly unfair to many people living in areas outside the big conurbations? Will he look at the possibility of increasing subsidies to bus undertakings?

My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the problem of public transport. He will be aware of the considerable subsidies that are paid towards public transport. Any further elements of public expenditure must be considered in the light of our survey of public expenditure as a whole and will form part of the further investigation that is necessary before next year.

Does the Minister agree that he is entirely wrong to attribute the expense of transport to work to the discretionary side of a person's activities? Is he aware that there are many other allowable expenses that are wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the process of earning an income? Does not this fall within that discretion?

It has always been held to be difficult to assess how much of this type of expenditure is incurred on the basis of a person's own personal choice. If one made certain parts of this type of travel allowable for tax reductions, one would disturb decisions to which a person rightly comes when choosing where he wishes to reside.

Does my right hon. Friend detect an element of hypocrisy in the attitude of the Opposition, since they are continually calling for cuts in subsidies, including rail subsidies, while at the same time weeping crocodile tears over the fate of commuters and continuously trying to make political capital out of their suffering?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the chasm that exists between the Opposition's obsession with cuts in public expenditure in general and increases in certain types of public expenditure.

Although the Minister has said that this is a difficult matter, does he agree that in the last few days the Government have shown that if they put their mind to do things that at first appear difficult they are able to resolve the difficulty? Is he aware that many people in commuting areas suffer extreme hardship because of increased fares and increases in other costs such as housing? Does he agree that it is time that something was done for these deserving people, who are in the present situation principally because of the enormous cost of living imposed upon them by the Government?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for reminding the House that the Government have been able to resolve a number of difficulties facing the country as a whole. I look forward to the Government resolving with equal effect other economic problems that we hope to overcome as a result of certain measures.

As regards personal choice, is the Minister aware that many people have to live in places where houses are available, particularly in view of the Government's policy of dispersing people from the inner cities to the suburbs and new towns? Will he put pressure on the Secretary of State for Transport to encourage the freezing or reduction of fares in the public transport sector in order to encourage the further use of public transport and to cut costs for commuters?

I take note of what the hon. Lady has said, and I hope that as a result she will be more sympathetic to the Government's problems on public expenditure than she has been during recent debates. These are problems that the Government must resolve. The general type of resolution that we have seen is an indication of our determination to fit the problem within the framework of our overall economic strategy.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct the Inland Revenue to check the 1977–78 tax codings for widows with children.

I assume that the hon. Lady is concerned about the adjustments relating to child benefits. All inspectors in charge of tax offices were reminded on 4th March of the need to see that the existing instructions have been correctly carried out.

I am grateful for that reply, but is the Financial Secretary aware that there is still a chaotic muddle in the minds of many people whose tax advice was sent out before 4th March and where errors have been made over the reduction of child tax allowance at the time of the introduction of child benefits? Will he ensure that when the second reduction is made—if it is made—in child tax allowance next autumn, the tax codings that go out, particularly to widows, are unequivocal and tell them exactly what their financial situation will be for the following year?

About 5½ million code changes were involved and reminders have been sent by the Inland Revenue. It has ensured that all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that widows receive their correct code numbers before 6th April. The instructions have been sent and there will be little difficulty. The operation has been complex. By the time we come to the next change, we shall have had experience and that should remove the problems that arose on the first occasion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a widow, or a family, with a child over 19 years of age who is still at school does not qualify for the child benefit allowance but has the child tax allowance reduced anyway? Does he agree that they are net losers? What is he going to do about it? He said that only a few people are involved, but there are 3,500 such people in the country. What is he going to do about them?

There have been some changes in the educational grants. We must understand that in the change-over from child allowances to child benefits there are a number of transitional problems with which we have had to deal. In the main, we have dealt with them satisfactorily.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is deeply distressing to the widows involved to receive £1 child benefit for their child and then to find that that sum is taken away from their pension? Is he aware that they then have to haggle with the Inland Revenue to ensure that they are not taxed on the money that they have never received, and that that causes deep personal distress?

I must remind the hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Your hon. Friend."] The House will know that all of us, irrespective of party, have friends situated in all sections of the House. I remind hon. Members that the new child benefit scheme comes into operation on 6th April. No one is out of pocket at the moment and no one can be out of pocket until the scheme starts its operation. I hope to try to ensure that nobody will be under any misunderstanding about the Government's intention, and instructions have been sent out to that effect.

Is not the whole story of the child benefit scheme a dismal tale of incompetence, of which this is just one more aspect? Does not the Minister recognise that to those with children over the age of 19 in full-time education it is not good enough to say that something will be done later, because they will have to pay a revised scale in the new academic year? Does he agree that this is yet another area where a higher standard of competence and efficiency is required?

I understand that the hon. Member is not opposed to the change from tax allowances to cash support for mothers. We have not had notable support for this important change, which has immense social consequences. The change has been valuable and it will be seen to be valuable. During the transitional stage I hope that we shall be able to carry the House with us until the final stages, when support to a mother for her child will be regarded as a normal arrangement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set in hand an examination of the proposal on tax and short-term social security benefit set out in the article by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury in The Guardian of 8th March.

I am having this scheme examined and I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

Does the Chief Secretary agree that we would not be justified in taxing short-term benefits because it would probably cost about £50 million a year to administer that change, but will he also agree that we cannot go on with a system that pays very large tax rebates to some people becoming unemployed but nothing at all to others, dependent entirely upon the moment at which they become unemployed? Will Treasury Ministers try to draft the Ways and Means Resolutions on the Budget in such a way that we stand a chance of having a good going over of this idea this year with a view to possible implementation next year?

As my hon. Friend knows, we always draft the Ways and Means Resolutions in as helpful a way as possible. I take my hon. Friend's point. There are serious administrative problems in this field, although in principle two incomes, one in work and one out of work, of equal amounts should be taxed equally. There is nothing wrong in principle with the taxing of short-term benefits. It is right, in my view, that they should be taxed. However, on the other hand, there are very serious administrative problems, to which my hon. Friend referred in his article, and I promise him that we shall be considering them.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that there may be some room for doubt as to quite whom he is intending to help in the drafting of the Ways and Means Resolutions, but that this is a matter on which there is equal concern on both sides of the House? Will he confirm the figure quoted by his hon. Friend that the total sums now paid out in tax refunds to people in receipt of short-term benefits amount to some £400 million? Will he also consider very seriously the suggestion put forward by his hon. Friend that, at least while people are drawing benefit and are not paying tax, they should be included in the tax code system and, therefore, not entitled to refunds for those relevant weeks?

I very much support bringing justice into this area and many others. I want to examine very carefully what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). There are very great administrative problems in dealing with this question through the PAYE system. We are talking about the equivalent of about 10 million additional jobs, because about half of short-term benefits are subject to claims and are for up to about two weeks, on average. That means an enormous administrative task. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that these are very serious administrative problems and that we are looking at them.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand? Of course, one can say that it is an administrative task to repay tax or to tax those who are drawing benefits of this kind, but is it not the case that every one of these people involves an administrative operation simply to secure the payment of a refund already? Would it not make sense, therefore, to take the same administration to see that they get no refund? What is the difference?

The difference is that the reasons for refunds are much more complex than the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. There are many other reasons for refunds. If the matter were as simple as that, I am sure that the Government of which he was a member would have looked into it and dealt with it. It is a much more complex matter than he cares to suggest.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the approximate cost in 1977–78 of restoring the cuts since February 1976 in housing, education, health and overseas aid, respectively; what estimate he makes of the effect of such restoration on the total number unemployed; and if he will consider giving priority to this in his Budget.

The programme tables in Part 2 of Cmnd. 6721 show changes from Cmnd. 6393. The aggregate saving was about £375 million. To restore this sum would mean increasing the basic rate of income tax by ¾p or increasing indirect taxes sufficiently to raise the RPI about ½per cent. The possible employment effects of any increases in individual programmes from the levels announced in Cmnd. 6721 would depend on how such increases were spent within the programmes concerned. My hon. Friend will have to await my Budget Statement for an answer to the last part of his Question.

Will the Chancellor give more attention to the letter from the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party on this matter—

Hear, hear.

than to any views that may come from a certain Liberal gentleman? Secondly, while I welcome tax reliefs for the lower paid, if, as now suddenly and astonishingly appears to be the case, the Chancellor is in a position to give away large sums, is it not only fair that a good part of this should go to helping those who need homes, home helps and nursery schools, and who are being so seriously hit by the recent cuts?

I shall give immensely careful attention to any communication that I receive from the NEC of the Labour Party—quite as close attention as I would give to representations made to me by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe).

As the rate of personal income tax arises on this Question, will the Chancellor—if not today, in his Budget Statement next week—state categorically by what date the present Government will reduce the level of personal tax to that which existed in 1973–74?

I shall bear in mind the point made by the hon. Gentleman, as I shall all the 2,379 other points that have been made to me for inclusion in my Budget Statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the lump sum payments to early-retired mineworkers which the National Coal Board has contracted to pay are chargeable to income tax.

Under the Finance Act 1970, superannuation schemes require the approval of the Board of Inland Revenue in order to qualify for the tax treatment which it provides. The Act provides for the payment within limits of lump sum benefits which will be exempt from tax, but questions relating to a particular scheme are a matter between the administrators of the scheme and the Board of Inland Revenue.

Is the Chief Secretary aware, however, that the Financial Secretary told me, in answer to a Question, that where the employee had a contractual right to the payment it would be taxable? Is he saying that the miners do not have a contractual right to this payment? If that is the case, I would accept that it is not taxable. Does he not feel that there would be a strike if there was a failure to make this payment—in which case it is clearly taxable? Does the social contract therefore provide that trade unionists should be treated differently for taxation purposes from the rest of us?

No, it does not. If Opposition Members take that kind of tone in relation to lump sum benefits for miners who have worked underground for a very long time, it is very fortunate that they are not in Government at present.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there are those in the mining industry who believe that the lump sum payment that is made under the early retirement scheme is not large enough and that it should be equal to that which is paid under the miners' redundancy payment scheme? Does it not make a significant contrast with the note issue made by GEC, in which Sir Arnold Weinstock himself pocketed £600,000 and avoided paying tax at the highest rate and might pay it at 35 per cent.? As compared with this small lump sum payment for miners who have worked underground for 40 or 50 years, does not my hon. Friend think that it is that which needs examining and not this payment for miners?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that there are double standards on the Opposition Benches. I would not necessarily agree with him about the early retirement scheme. It is a good scheme and I think that it has been accepted as such by the NUM.

No one questions the hard work of miners, but the Minister has a very serious question to answer from my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—namely, whether he can reassure us that treatment for tax for payments of this kind is the same for all workers.

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. I told him in my original answer that the schemes have to be approved by the Inland Revenue, and if they are approved the payments will he tax-free.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory and evasive nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will postpone the start of the requirement for a new 714 certificate at least until the Inland Revenue has dealt with the applications.

No, Sir. The great majority of applications have been dealt with, and I have made special transitional arrangements to deal with the rest.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the shambles that exists over the issue of 714 certificates goes much wider than the labour-only sub-contractors to whom they were originally intended to apply? Will he admit that there are local authorities that are refusing the right to tender to contractors who do not hold such a certificate? Does that attitude have the right hon. Gentleman's support?

I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman in his description of the introduction of the scheme. The scheme replaces the Conservative-introduced scheme, which had the same objectives. We have introduced a scheme that will work. It is necessary to understand that the 714 certificates are a means of ensuring that those who are required to pay tax in fact pay tax on the earnings they make.

Does my right hon. Friend understand that there seems to be some local difficulty at the Bristol (6) tax office? Will he look into the difficulty as a matter of urgency?

I shall be happy to look into any case that my hon. Friend may wish to put to me.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, while we all support the aim of ending tax dodging in this respect, a key part of the proposal was the issue of plastic cards, including the photograph of the sub-contractor concerned, to ensure that there was no possibility of fiddling? However, because of the muddle in the right hon. Gentleman's Department, he has now instructed contractors that they may accept a letter without any photograph or any proof of identity. What was all the fuss about in the first place?

The hon. Gentleman may know that the letter is to deal only with applications that come at the tail end of 18 months' preparation. It is designed to cover only the period up to 5th July. This has been made crystal clear. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support for the photographs, which a number of his hon. Friends opposed when they were first announced.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that there is no doubt about the need to have some effective method of collecting tax from people wherever and however they work but that the scheme is causing administrative chaos throughout the industry? Is he aware that it is causing many sub-contractors to lose their livelihoods altogether? It is causing many main contractors to lose those who would otherwise be working for them. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that these difficulties stem from the detailed and restrictive conditions attached to the scheme? Will he give the House the assurance that the Government will reconsider the entire operation of the scheme before they bring the Finance Bill before the House?

This is a matter that has been before the House for the past two years. The legislation was passed by the House 18 months ago. Certificate application forms were put in at that time. There has been plenty of time for the introduction and understanding of the scheme. We are now dealing with the 5,000 applications awaiting the Inland Revenue. It may be that some more will come into the tax offices at the last minute. The arrangements that I have announced are designed to meet only the late applications.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning the taxation of widows; and what replies he has given.

Many representations have been received about the taxation of widows, from hon. Members, from widow's organisations and from others. Naturally, my right hon. Friend has given them careful consideration in preparing his Budget. The Government's view remains that increases in widows' pensions are a more effective way of helping all widows than providing special tax reliefs.

Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 245, signed by 83 hon. Members from all parts of the House, which demonstrates the concern that is felt about widows' taxation? Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, when drawing up the Budget, to bear in mind the deep and justified sense of grievance that national insurance widows feel about the tax burden that they bear compared with married women and war widows?

I understand the sense of concern that everyone feels for those whose lives have been shattered by widowhood. This is a matter that must always be present in the minds of all of us, but there is the problem of widows' pensions. If we were to produce tax allowances to assist them, more money would be made available to those who have most. That is the way the tax system works. We believe that the right way to approach the matter is through the social security scheme, which is expressly designed to give most to those who have the greatest need. That is the way in which we should make moneys available to those in the greatest need as described by my hon. Friend.

I realise that the Minister cannot divulge any of the Budget proposals, but I remind him of the letter that I have sent from my constituency concerning a widow with total earnings of £28 a week who has been taxed at £5 a week, leaving her with less spending power than if she were on social security. Will the Chancellor bear in mind the urgent necessity of raising all tax thresholds well above the social security level?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about levels of tax thresholds. This is obviously a matter that my right hon. Friend will have at the forefront of his mind in the Budget Statement that he will be making next week.