Clause 26 - Penalty for contravention of relevant rule
Finance Bill
10:45 am
Mr John Baron (Billericay, Conservative)
I, too, have one or two concerns about the clause's infringement of civil liberties. Clauses 25 and 26 will make it easier for Customs and Excise to take action against individuals evading customs duties or import VAT. The introduction of civil penalties will bring the customs regime into line with other regimes administered by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise such as VAT, where civil penalties have been used to improve compliance. In general, it seems sensible to approve of a step that provides for civil penalties to increase compliance with the rules rather than to leave criminal sanctions as the only option. In that respect, the Government's move is welcome. However, I have one or two concerns and I would appreciate it if the Economic Secretary were to address them.
I seek an assurance that the move to civil penalties will not be detrimental to an individual's civil liberties. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury has already mentioned the important phrase ''without further qualification''. It means that Customs and Excise does not have to give reasons for designating someone a ''prescribed person'', which has all sorts of ramifications. Under the current provisions, a person could have no knowledge of why they were being designated as such and would therefore have no redress.
The amendment is designed to prevent Customs and Excise imposing a penalty simply by naming any person as falling within the description ''liable to a penalty''. That is important, because the power could prevent someone from arguing that they should not be included, because Customs and Excise could include them by name without giving an explanation or a reason. That point should concern the Committee and I should like to hear the Economic Secretary's views.
The burden of proof in evasion cases falls on the individual, who must prove that they have not been avoiding paying their liabilities—a point on which we have already touched. Clause 26 introduces civil penalties for a breach of certain rules and requirements in circumstances other than evasion such as negligence. Would it not be better if the Government had to prove that an individual is guilty of evasion? For example, an innocent trucker could make an administrative error through negligence or oversight and find himself automatically liable to civil penalties at the discretion of Customs and Excise. The
burden of proof and the right to redress particularly concern me, and I look forward to the Economic Secretary addressing those issues when he sums up.