Clause 36 - Appeals
Tax Credits Bill
3:45 pm
Professor Steve Webb (Northavon, Liberal Democrat)
This is a test to see whether anybody is keeping an eye on what we are up to. Amendment No. 74 seeks to include within the scope of things against which one can appeal the matters covered by clause 27(2)(a). Perceptive Committee members will have noticed that there is no clause 27(2)(a), but had amendment No. 68 been agreed there would have been. The amendment remained on the Amendment Paper because the Chairmen were so confident that amendment No. 68 would be accepted. Let us regard it as a probing amendment.
Within the scope of decisions that can be appealed against, it would seem from my aided reading that the recovery of overpayments—a decision that an overpayment has been made and that it needs to be repaid—is impossible to appeal against because it is not within the scope of clause 36. The purpose of the amendment was to see whether that was the intention, or whether one can appeal against overpayments. If one cannot appeal, we feel that one ought to be able to.
On the subject of appeals and related matters such as penalties, I ask the Minister to reply on record to a
question of which I have given her prior notice. On Tuesday, the Financial Secretary responded to one of my questions about cases in which people can face penalties for not supplying information:
''The initial penalty under the provisions is not at the Revenue's discretion because only the commissioners may impose it.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 January 2002; c. 201.]
I have been advised that that may not be consistent with the rest of the Bill. It seems that penalties for not supplying information are at the board's discretion because it imposes them, and penalties will only get near the commissioners if there is an appeal, which we are discussing in clause 36.
It has been put to me that that was probably an inaccurate statement of the position regarding the imposition of penalties, and it would be helpful if the Paymaster General would clarify whether her right hon. Friend meant what he said in that case because the transcripts of what we say are sometimes used in appeals and court cases, and it would be unfortunate if an inaccurate impression had been given.
The guts of the amendment are that one should be able to appeal against a decision on an overpayment.