| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 603
those 10 years were the halcyon days of the Labour Government, when car production declined every year. Since 1981, almost without exception, but with a small drop at the end of the 1980s, car production has risen under the Conservative Government. By the end of the century, it will be at record levels.The key issue, which was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton, is that of quality. People can now drive around with a Rover badge on their car--it is a sign of pride, not a warning against buying the car. Rover feels sufficiently confident that it is offering a money-back guarantee even to anyone who is dissatisfied with the colour of the upholstery. If it had offered that guarantee a few years ago, it would not have been just the M25 that looked like a parking lot ; the M1 and the M6 would have been jammed with Montegos, Austin Princesses and Allegros being taken back to the factory by people wanting their money back. Such is the current reputation of Rover that it can now offer a money-back guarantee.
I am proud to get into my British-designed, British-build Land-Rover Discovery. Every time that I drive it I am aware that a British company is taking on the world and winning. There is a convention among politicians that when we are abroad we do not run down our country. It is sad that all too many Opposition Members, when they are at home, are relentlessly prepared to do so. Rover showed us what happens when a nationalised industry is returned to the private sector. There is a similar story with other companies, such as British Aerospace at Woodford. Last year, the regional jets that it manufactures captured just over 50 per cent. of the world market in very difficult circumstances. Now, through a joint venture with Taiwan Aerospace, that success will be further built upon and British Aerospace's position will be strengthened. That joint venture would not be possible without the active support and intervention of Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry--active intervention before any meal that Labour Members might care to mention.
The same is true of other privatised industries, such as British Steel, British Telecom and British Aerospace. British Airways has doubled the number of passengers that it had when it was privatised. Almost all those companies offer a better service to their customers at a lower price. Each and every one of those privatisations was relentlessly opposed, tooth and claw, by Labour. We need no lessons from Labour on how to bring those companies back into profitability and make them successful again.
A few weeks ago, the Financial Times wrote of the Labour party "Labour's corporatist interventionist instincts are alive and putting the boot into the free market. Those who throught that Labour had forsaken the profits are dirty, bash big business mentality of the post-war decades are in for a rude awakening."
Almost a year earlier to the day, the same Financial Times urged its readers to vote Labour, but now it realises that Labour does not change its spots. It is not an electable party and never will be. Perhaps we should look more than anything at the example of British Coal, because of the topicality of the coal industry to the debate and to the House. Output per man in British pits more than doubled in the eight years
Column 604
since 1984. The tragedy of British Coal--I speak as one who has contested two mining seats and who has a tremendous affection for the industry and for the people who work in it--is that if productivity had increased as fast in the 1960s and 1970s, its work force would have been sustained and the difficulties that British Coal now faces would not exist.Since 1979, the Government have supported British Coal to the tune of £18 billion of taxpayers' money, and the subsidy that the Government are continuing to give will ensure that British Coal continues to have a chance to compete. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central referred to Komatsu in his constituency. It seems all right for a failing British company to be taken over by a Japanese company--so why does Labour not welcome the decision by the Government and British Coal to encourage private sector companies to take over those British pits that do not have a future in the nationalised sector? The sooner that British Coal in its entirety can be returned to the private sector, the better it will be for all. I come with the message from High Peak that manufacturing industry is not just improving but is in optimistic mood, and is looking forward with determination and in the belief that it can break through the end of the recession. Government policies are working. Industry itself will testify to that, and I urge the Government to continue on their present course.
2.17 pm
Mr. McLoughlin : With permission, I wish to congratulate those of my hon. Friends who participated in the debate.
Mr. McLoughlin : The right hon. Gentleman should be a little patient and not get excited, because I was about to say that other right hon. and hon. Members participated in a debate which--I say this with due deference to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)--was more wide ranging than I expected, but I will reply to the points that were put to me.
We have slowly dragged out from Labour Members their agreement that there has been a dramatic improvement in manufacturing since 1979. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that we do nothing but attack trade unions as the cornerstone of all our ills. I would not go that far, but trade unions must take a big responsibility for the low growth that Britain suffered in the 1970s. In 1979, we lost 25 million working days through strike action, and that did British industry no good whatsoever.
If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West claims that there is nothing wrong with the trade union movement, he is deluding himself and the Labour party, which no longer talks of reversing the trade union legislation that we fought Labour tooth and claw to get through the House.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) made some good points about research and development with which I agreed. He quoted my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but my right hon. Friend was merely pointing out what still needs to be done. I am not here today to say that everything is fine and nothing more needs to be done. Indeed, many of
Column 605
my hon. Friends referred to areas in which more needs to be done, including education. Developments in education are wholly important. The research and development scoreboard shows a welcome increase in spending by companies. In the difficult climate of the past 12 months, spending has risen by 6 per cent.--above the inflation rate--to £6.5 billion, so some changes and welcome increases have been made in research and development. Obviously, I should like to see more of that.My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) explained the changes that have taken place in the motor industry, especially at Vauxhall cars. He was right to say that Vauxhall has the same production levels and requirement levels as Toyota and Nissan and is competing with those companies. Those companies have had to reduce their labour force to compete. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central must accept that Nissan and Toyata are competing with a smaller number of workers than would have been required some years ago. If the British car industry had not made the same changes as Vauxhall and Rover, it would not be competitive today or producing cars. One way for the industry to become more productive was to reduce its work force. The simple answer is that unless companies sell their goods, there is no market and it is no good producing goods that no one wishes to buy.
Wide points were about the whole system of education, the way in which the GCSE was introduced and its importance in changing our education system. I agree with that. It must be admitted that, when the reform was introduced in 1986, there was tooth and nail opposition from various teaching unions. The new exam system got under way only at the insistence of the then Secretary of State, Lord Joseph, in the face of opposition, and was then widely welcomed by the teaching staff. Perhaps that also holds a lesson for us about what needs to be done in the future.
Several of my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the importance of the training and enterprise councils. I came to my new responsibilities from the Department of Employment, where I worked closely with those councils and saw the role that they had to take on. A number of TECs have taken forward some imaginative ideas and will have a substantial role in developing local enterprise and training. They were instrumental in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson). The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed tried quickly to link in what his county council was doing.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) talked about the need for the assisted area map to be reviewed. That is being done and announcements will be made when final decisions are taken. I was sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about social dumping. In some ways, he was saying that the inward investment that we have attracted is social dumping. If he thinks that, he should look at those companies because they have high-quality, good and proper jobs. Mr. Cox rose --
Column 606
Mr. McLoughlin : I am sorry, but I am short of time. I apologise if I have misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman, but that seemed to be the direction in which he was aiming his remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), in a developed speech, had some fairly radical ideas. That should not surprise us because he often has radical ideas and, sooner or later, some of them are pursued. I shall certainly reread his speech with interest.
I was slightly surprised by one of the points made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. He referred to the reports that he has made and the people to whom he has spoken since his return. He said that people are amazed that we are still applying sanctions, that in November 1945 the Marshall plan had already been implemented, so why has there been no change? The hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked the obvious fact that in November 1945 Hitler was no longer around in Germany.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow knows the view of the United Nations on Libya : sanctions are targeted at military equipment and goods relating to civil aviation and are in pursuit of a mandatory resolution that stems from the alleged complicity of the agents of the Libyan Government in the destruction of the PanAm aircraft over Lockerbie. The hon. Gentleman was right to condemn that horrendous crime. At that time, I was a Minister with responsibility for aviation and saw the consequences of the destruction of that aircraft.
As for the sanctions on Iraq, United Nations Security Council resolution 687 permits, under licence, the supply of foodstuffs, medical products and materials and commodities deemed as being essential for civilian use. Any United Kingdom exporter can apply to my Department's sanctions unit for an export licence and for a United Nations letter of clearance, confirming the United Nations sanctions committee's approval of the export of medical products to Iraq. I shall look at the hon. Gentleman's speech and give a considered response to the questions that he put to me. I will ensure that he receives a full reply, either from me or from my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade.
Mr. Dalyell : I asked for a considered response, but I should like to keep open the option that the Prime Minister has kindly given me of going to see him.
Mr. McLoughlin : If the hon. Gentleman feels it is appropriate, I am sure that he will wish to follow up that invitation.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, I have a large rural constituency. I realise, therefore, that large constituencies are very diverse and that industry is vital to individual towns in such areas. If industry leaves those areas, it can have a devastating effect on employment. Nevertheless, I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that he has witnessed an increase in industrial activity in his constituency.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to relocation expenses. I am sure that he will deal with that question during the proceedings on the Finance Bill. I shall not comment, therefore, on matters that will be debated upstairs in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) made a strong case for Devonport naval dockyard. He knows better than most that no decision has yet been taken. An announcement will be made in due
Column 607
course. I can say no more than that now. Both he and many hon. Members with constituencies in that part of the country have made a strong case, both this morning and on other occasions, for the dockyard. I will ensure that what my hon. Friend said is drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.The hon. Member for Newham, North-West said that the Government have adopted a short-term outlook. We have not. I have outlined today the changes in manufacturing productivity over the past 10 years. It has taken time to put into operation some of the measures that we wanted to take, because of the tooth and nail opposition to all the trade union and privatisation reforms that we believe are essential if the economy is to grow and develop. The business activity of many industries was restricted by their being in the public sector, so we have given those industries the freedom of the private sector to make commercial decisions and attract business from elsewhere in the world.
There have been tremendous achievements. Before they were privatised, British Telecom, British Gas and the water companies had to restrict their operations to the public sector. Since privatisation, they have had the freedom to become leaders in world markets, and they have succeeded. I do not, therefore, accept the accusation that we have adopted a short-term attitude.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), who shares a constituency boundary with me, made a number of important points. Interestingly, when the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central was asked why, if so much is so awful, we had managed to be successful in attracting so much inward investment, there was a numbing silence. He could not bring himself to acknowledge that, in the past 10 years, the Government have put in place the right economic conditions, the right economic climate and the right industrial relations framework to attrack inward investment and to see a growth in jobs--
Mr. Cousins : A growth in jobs?
Mr. McLoughlin : A growth in the amount of jobs available that would not have been available if we had not been as successful in attracting inward investment.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Column 608
Tax Offices (Closure)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
2.30 pm
Sir Roger Moate (Faversham) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for being here personally on, no doubt, an inconvenient Friday afternoon to respond to this debate on the proposed closure of local tax offices.
If the debate had been held at a more convenient time in the parliamentary week, it would have been supported by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), who is an adviser to the Inland Revenue Staff Federation. May I say how supportive he has been and that he would have been here were it not for prior commitments? I have been impressed by the case put, and the manner in which it has been put, by members of the staff federation. They must be, and are, concerned about the disruption to the lives of their colleagues, but their arguments have related principally and genuinely to the question of providing a service to local taxpayers. Despite the likelihood of the closures going ahead, their concern, and mine, is that this should not happen unless we can retain a proper Inland Revenue presence, even a small but proper one, to provide good customer service to local taxpayers.
I have long been impressed by the commitment of the Inland Revenue to service to the taxpayer under the taxpayers charter. Even before the citizens charter entered our political life, I recall visiting Somerset house to be greeted by a large and splendid board proclaiming the taxpayers charter. Like the Ten Commandents, it was there, proud and dominant. There was and is a genuine commitment to the charter, and I understand that it is displayed in every tax office.
If it were not a Friday afternoon, we might have been graced by the presence of the Home Secretary, who once had an Adjournment debate on the closure of Folkestone tax office. Perhaps Mr. Matthew Parris would have been in the Press Gallery, because when he was a Member of Parliament he took the same course for a tax office in his Derbyshire constituency. Those were the last two Adjournment debates on the subject.
It is proposed that the Sittingbourne tax office should close this August. It is not the conventional wisdom that the Inland Revenue is held in love and esteem by its customers, but the proposal has created a great deal of local opposition and concern. I shall later give the Minister a petition that was gathered in the space of a few hours in Sittingbourne. It has been signed by more than 700 taxpayers who oppose the closure. I must warn him that the second signature on the petition is that of a Mr. Major, who may have friends in high places. Local companies, business interests and professional accountants have also objected to the proposal. I, too, oppose the closure most strongly.
I hope that, over the years, I have not troubled the local tax office too often, but when I have done so I have always received a most courteous and helpful response. The office has been of great assistance both to me and to my constituents. I shall be very sorry if that valuable link is lost.
Column 609
Time after time, local offices have been withdrawn in many spheres of government, the public services or public utilities. It seems that there is a relentless drive towards centralisation which, we are told, will save money, use resources more efficiently or improve services to the customer. However, the opposite almost always happens : centralisation costs more, wastes resources and reduces the level of customer services. In any event, it certainly reduces the quality of face-to-face service.We are often told that such changes are the inevitable consequence of the computer age and the revolution in information technology, but the reverse should be the case. Just as the computer terminal allows professional skills to be employed even at home, the computer link should encourage rather than undermine the provision of local services in local offices, offering face-to-face help to the consumer, backed up by direct and instant access to all necessary information.
I am not convinced that it will be cheaper or better to close local tax offices and centralise their services in a few, very large offices. Taxation officers and Revenue staff will need the same phones, desks, offices and computer terminals. It is not immediately clear where the substantial economies of scale are to be made, but it is clear that there will be greater travel costs for everyone--public and staff alike--and that local services to the customer will be lost.
My immediate concern relates to the proposed closure of the Sittingbourne office. It is a large office employing 80 or 90 staff who dealt with no fewer than 1,100 personal inquirers in the past 12 months. That was in addition to telephone inquiries and inquiries from visitors who wanted literature or those who attended for formal interviews. Let there be no doubt about the importance of the office in terms of local service or about the inconvenience that the closure will cause.
It is proposed to relocate the office in Maidstone. The journey to Maidstone by public transport is so long that it will deter most people. It is bad enough getting from Sheppey or other parts of my constituency to Sittingbourne, but the round trip of about 50 miles from Sheppey to Maidstone is unthinkable. One would have to allow a couple of hours for a return journey even from Sittingbourne to Maidstone or about three hours from Faversham or Sheppey to Maidstone. One must also take into account the inconvenience, the time lost and the cost of transport. The Minister and the Inland Revenue must understand that, in practice, people will not make such long journeys. Indeed, they cannot make such journeys, so customer services will be lost.
I shall concentrate on a number of issues that arise from the Sittingbourne closure but which apply equally to the question of Inland Revenue reorganisation. I do not think that most people--or, indeed, most hon. Members--are aware that we are on the threshold of an enormous reorganisation of the Inland Revenue network of local tax collection offices. I am told that there are 766 local offices, the majority of which will cease to exist in the next decade. There has been very little debate and very little justification for this immense exercise. I have suggested that the Treasury Select Committee should look into it, but I do not know whether it will. I hope that it will, because it is important that it should.
Let me put it on record that it is possible--probable, I suspect--that the Inland Revenue could make a powerful and first-class case for the process, but, equally, it is right that the process should be scrutinised, challenged and
Column 610
justified. I suspect that, after proper analysis, the case might prove not to be so strong, but it should at the very least be scrutinised. If it is not scrutinised properly by the House, we may be inundated with hundreds of similar Adjournment debates on Friday afternoons. If that is not a deterrent, I do not know what is. I recently asked the Minister questions--through parliamentary questions and in correspondence--to which he gave frank and helpful answers. I asked whether there had been proper consultation with everyone involved. I wanted to know about the projected savings and how the Minister intended to continue to provide good customer services locally in order to meet the criteria of the citizens charter.My hon. Friend gave some full and courteous answers. I do not intend to be abrasive--I hope that I never am--in saying that the answers simply serve to increase my scepticism about the whole exercise. I hope that my hon. Friend does not think that I am being too dismissive of the information he gave me. In effect, the savings are minuscule, if they exist at all. My hon. Friend has given me more information in a letter I received today which bears that out. In some areas there may be some savings, but in other areas there may not be. New central costs are incurrtation, and he said that a number of representations had been received. However, I had the impression that, although the representations might have been courteously received, the programme was under way and virtually unstoppable, and that consultation was not really part of the exercise. I refer to public rather than to internal consultation. I leave it to others to decide whether that has been proper. I gather that there may be some complaints in that respect, but my objective today is not to deal with those.
The answers on the citizens charter implications were not satisfactory. My hon. Friend said :
"the Department is investigating alternative ways of meeting taxpayers' needs."--[ Official Report, 10 May 1993 ; Vol. 224, c. 326. ]
It is not satisfactory to be told that alternative ways of providing help are being investigated when it is proposed that closure should take place this August.
I do not intend to dwell on the question of cost, but I point out that I was told that the total saving from the reorganisation in our area would be £1.25 million. That figure is rather dubious. Even the rental savings in Sittingbourne are likely to be only £79,000, which is such a small amount that it is likely to be absorbed by the margin of error. The £1.25 million saving arises from the substantial reorganisation of many offices.
It points to the scale of the exercise that, by March 1994, as my hon. Friend has told me, 15 reorganisations involving 71 existing offices will have taken place. Of those, 61 offices will cease to exist in their present form. It is that larger reorganisation which saves the relatively small amount of £1.25 million. I wonder whether that allows for the number of local offices that will be vacated and left empty, such as the excellent Revenue office in Sittingbourne? Taking all that into account, are we saving anything at all? So often in such reorganisations the costs go up. Reorganisation costs money. I return to the key issue of meeting taxpayers' needs, on which I believe my hon. Friend can and should do
Column 611
something. He should make it clear to the Revenue that providing proper tax advice offices in every significant town where offices exist today is a condition which must be met before reorganisation proceeds any further, either in my constituency or anywhere else in the land.As a Treasury Minister, my hon. Friend is a perceptive and fair man. I never used to say that when he was a Whip, but I hope now that he will acknowledge that his answers have fudged the issue. They do not deal properly with the provision of a future service for taxpayers. I do not blame my hon. Friend the Minister or the Inland Revenue officials for doing their best with the reorganisation. They are working to their brief and doing their best, but such schemes develop a life and momentum of their own and sometimes need correcting. What should be provided to replace tax offices if and when they are closed? The answer I first received from my hon. Friend was :
"The Department is investigating alternative ways of meeting taxpayers' needs."
The closure is to take place in August, so it is a bit late to be investigating it. That is fundamental.
I then gathered that there might be a proper tax advice office locally. I take that to mean a small office--in Sittingbourne or anywhere else that is appropriate--manned by a small professionally qualified team of staff who can deal with most inquiries and help taxpayers, with direct access to computer records and enabling taxpayers to make appointments for interviews with inspectors on agreed dates. All such Revenue staff could be fully engaged all the time, doing normal tax work as well as providing a face-to- face customer service. But is that on offer? I think not.
I am told that such an office might be created at Maidstone or at other new large tax offices when they are established to replace the existing 766 offices. It is of little use to my constituents if the office is at Maidstone and in an inaccessible location.
My hon. Friend the Minister tells me in his letter today that there will be an improved telephone service. That is very good, but it is not what most people mean by a face-to-face personal service. Remember : there are 11,000 personal callers at our local tax office. A telephone service is not enough ; it is not what people consider to be local service in accordance with the taxpayers charter. We are then told about a mobile advisory service--a tax man in a tax van. Like the mobile library service, that may be good for villages, but most people will not consider it an adequate alternative to a regular, permanent, proper service in substantial towns and communities throughout the country. We are also told about tax clinics. I cannot really distinguish between the tax clinic and a mobile tax service. Neither sounds very substantial or permanent. The solution to the problem is clear and would be easy to implement if my hon. Friend would take it on board. My suggestion is constructive rather than obstructive. It is simply that we should ensure that there are properly manned genuine tax advice or tax assistance offices in towns throughout the country.
The Government and the Inland Revenue should take a much harder look at the reorganisation scheme and should pause before closing any offices and, in particular, the Sittingbourne office. I have neither read nor heard anything to persuade me that the exercise will be anything other than more costly, more bureaucratic and more
Column 612
inconvenient for staff and public alike. In its present form and without improvement, it runs contrary to the whole spirit of the citizens charter and the taxpayers charter, to which I know and believe the Inland Revenue is truly dedicated.2.47 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell) : I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the commitment of everyone who works for the Revenue to the principle of quality of service. I am sure that he is right in what he said. The Inland Revenue is not always presented in a favourable light and when an opportunity to recognise the importance of its work arises, it should be taken. I thank my hon. Friend for doing that and wish to associate myself with his remarks on that subject.
My hon. Friend fairly sought to present his argument in the context both of the specific circumstances affecting Sittingbourne and of the general programme of office reorganisation on which the Revenue is embarked. Let me try to respond to his arguments in very much the same spirit. I shall start with the general and work towards the specific, using Sittingbourne to illustrate some of the general points. I should say in parenthesis to my hon. Friend that I share his natural suspicion of many of the arguments advanced in favour of improving efficiency and value for money by centralisation. That is a prejudice which I share with him absolutely.
I also share some of my hon. Friend's discomfort about the application of the principles of change within the Inland Revenue in the local office context. One of the things that my hon. Friend and I have in common--apart from the fact that I was once his Whip--is that the local tax office that serves Loughborough is also tied up in a programme of change similar to that which affects his constituents in Faversham. Therefore, I share his prejudice and his local constituency interest in the issue.
I want to refer to the programme of reform which my hon. Friend described and which, he rightly said, would merit more debate. One of the frustrating things about being a Minister is that one can commit a fair amount of time and effort to working out a policy programme and one can announce it, but if it does not capture the imagination, securing a debate on the issue is very much easier said than done. I would not run away from a debate on the programme and I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the merits of having a better understanding in the House and outside about what the Revenue is seeking to do.
I believe that the arguments in favour of the programme of change which was announced to the House--it was not kept secret--as a 10-year programme by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, are very powerful. The programme was announced just before the last election, so clearly we did not believe that it was something which needed to be shuffled under the carpet.
To understand those arguments, perhaps it is best to start by understanding the present situation and the disadvantages in the present structure of tax offices, which should be balanced against some of the advantages to which my hon. Friend referred.
It is quite right to say that, under the present system, we have an extensive office structure which is represented in most significant towns and cities all over the country. That much is true. However, it is also important to remember
Column 613
that that office structure has weaknesses, one of which is that we still have in our tax system a distinction which no one, starting with a clean sheet of paper, would wish to defend as a principle that we would want to reinvent. That is the distinction between the inspector of taxes and the collector of taxes.One of the most frustrating things about dealing with the tax system as it is presently structured is to be told by the inspector or collector-- whoever it is one wishes to speak to--that he does not deal with the issue that one wants to talk to him about and that it is the responsibility of his colleague--the collector or inspector--on the other side of the fence. The distinction between inspector and collector is not something that I regard as a strength of our system.
Another disadvantage in our system is that although there is a local tax office in each significant town and city, it does not mean that a resident of that town will have his tax affairs handled in that office. The vast majority of residents have their tax affairs dealt with through the schedule E system of PAYE. The PAYE base is not in the tax office where the resident lives, it is in the tax office of the payment point of the employing company. With regard to large national companies, it can take some time to find the right tax office to inquire about one's affairs. One does not deal with one's local tax office as the tax office is determined by the employer's payment point.
Another disadvantage of our present system is that even if one ultimately finds the PAYE office that deals with one's PAYE affairs, if one has more complex tax affairs it is likely that that office will not deal with other aspects of one's circumstances. Individuals might find themselves dealing with more than one tax office in relation to different aspects of their private affairs.
All that is the result of our traditional system. Those are weaknesses of that system. That is why the Revenue has embarked on the process of change to try to address some of those weaknesses and at the same time--I do not apologise for this--to deliver significant cost savings.
What does the programme of change announced by the Chancellor in March 1992 do? First, it addresses directly the distinction between inspector and collector as it commits the Revenue to merge those two operations. Secondly, it seeks to establish the new office structure--the three-tier office structure--to which my hon. Friend referred and with which he is clearly familiar.
That structure will bring significant benefits. It will bring, first and foremost from the taxpayer's point of view, a new system which will ensure that there is, for each taxpayer, a single point of contact with the Inland Revenue for the first time. Whether one is dealing with a collection function or an inspection function, and whichever part of one's affairs--if they are complex--one is dealing with, there will be a single point of contact.
Dealing directly with my hon. Friend's point about the taxpayer assistance system, because it will be a more specific function within the Revenue, there will be a more direct commitment and a greater capacity to deliver a high-quality taxpayer assistance service than exists at the moment. I know that my hon. Friend doubts that, because he read my letter on the subject and he says that we have not yet committed ourselves in concrete to what precisely the structure of that service will look like in Sittingbourne.
My hon. Friend is on to a fair point, except that it seems that what is important in the context of taxpayer assistance is not the bricks and mortar, the nature of the
Column 614
office and telephone and the qualifications of the person who will sit there, but that the taxpayer assistance service directly answers the specific concerns of the citizen, the taxpayer, whom it is there to serve.I turn my hon. Friend's arguments back on him and stress to him the benefit of having a commitment to taxpayer assistance which is flexible and which we are determined should respond to the specific concerns that are expressed in my hon. Friend's constituency, for example. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend would think that the interests of taxpayers in Faversham are best served by having bricks and mortar in Sittingbourne or having a specific support provided more closely to them in Faversham. Those are questions which the Revenue management is quite correct to address to seek to deliver a better service.
I understand my hon. Friend's natural concern to see something that is firm and a commitment that can be readily understood. The commitment is not to a specific nature of service. The commitment, as the citizens charter enjoins it to be, is to deliver a quality of service in terms of taxpayer assistance.
The third benefit, which we should not sneeze at, is that the programme of change to which the Revenue is committed will deliver running-cost savings over a 10-year period which, at the end of that period, will amount to roughly £70 million a year in today's values. I accept my hon. Friend's point that we must tie that down and that matter has been the subject of more than one intense conversation between myself as the Minister responsible and the chairman of the Board of the Inland Revenue. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that if we embark on a 10-year programme at the end of which we are promised Revenue savings of £70 million a year, it is part of the functions of Ministers on behalf of the taxpayer to insist that that saving is secured. And, furthermore, it is a part of Ministers' responsibilities to set out milestones along the way so that we do not suddenly get to a point in 10 years when we say that we were promised £70 million in savings and suddenly they are found not to be there.
There will be savings, there will be a single point of contact, and there will be a greater commitment to taxpayer assistance, because that is part of the purpose of the changes that we are undertaking. On the specifics of the programme in Sittingbourne, as my hon. Friend will know, what is being done in Sittingbourne is not in a sense what was done in the tax office case of Matthew Parris or even, I suspect, of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in Folkestone, to quote the two examples to which my hon. Friend referred. It is quite consciously part of the wider process of change which I have been describing. It brings together the functions of the Sittingbourne tax office, the existing two offices in Maidstone, and part of the collection activities in Chatham and Canterbury. It delivers significant short-term savings--never mind the contribution to the wider programme and the £70 million over 10 years that I have been talking about. The new Maidstone office will deliver the service to the area for which it is responsible for a figure which will cost the taxpayer in Revenue savings about £340,000 a year less than the existing tax office structure does.
Once again, I agree with my hon. Friend that we must make certain that those savings are real and secured, but £340,000 a year out of a local tax office does not seem to me to be an insignificant quantum of savings.
Column 615
The justification of the change is two-fold in terms of the Sittingbourne office. The first is that it delivers cost savings in its own right as a scheme and the second is that it is part of a wider reorganisation of the Revenue which is designed to improve the service to taxpayers and provide a better value-for-money service for taxpayers as part of the Inland Revenue's contribution to the citizens charter programme and improving the public service. Question put and agreed to.Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.
| Written Answers Section
| Home Page |