Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford & Stortford, Conservative)

The clause seeks to align the procedures for statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay with national insurance and tax, and in that sense it is similar to clauses 7 and 8. However, there is also a shift from criminal to civil penalties. Given the nature and scale of the offence, that change is to be welcomed on principle. It would be helpful to establish—whether in Committee or, after further research, in writing—what the scale of the offences is. What is the comparative level of the problem for tax, national insurance and the two payments in question? Is there a significant difference in the rate of offending, for example? How does the Paymaster General think the change will affect that difference? Switching to civil penalties is important, because the regulatory impact assessment and the explanatory notes seem to suggest that offences are largely unintended, although not entirely so. A tiny minority try to avoid their responsibilities, whereas most people who fall foul do not have their sums right or fail to meet the deadlines.

There is a wider point, which is that Governments and Whitehall need to remember that businesses are doing an unpaid job for them by collecting payroll-related sums. Governments of whatever hue save a

fortune by having those businesses handle and administer their revenues in that form. We would all do well to bear that in mind.

What steps are planned to explain the changes to the business community? It is clear from the regulatory impact assessment that there will be savings, but it is not clear what they will be and how they will work. Will the Paymaster General provide some more meaningful information? Overall, the clause is welcome and we do not wish to oppose it.

Mr Norman Lamb (North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)

We also welcome the changes, although I raised two caveats on Second Reading. First, given that the penalty is now a civil penalty, is the level imposed up to the available maximum determined by internal guidance or are there regulations, of which I am unaware, that provide guidance? I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify further how the Revenue determines the level in matters that are already covered by civil penalties and how it will be determined in the present case.

Secondly, the burden of proof reduces when the change is made from criminal to civil liability, which makes it easier for the body concerned—in this case the Inland Revenue—to impose the penalty and recover a sum from the citizen. We would like reassurance that those powers will be used proportionately. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford point about the number of prosecutions. My understanding is that there are little or no prosecutions in that area. One suspects that there may be more civil penalties—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.