Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I apologise for not welcoming you to the Chair when I spoke earlier, Mr. O’Hara.

Will my right hon. Friend explain a technical drafting matter? We have had debates on mobile phones and, under clause 62, we did not have the debate on eye test vouchers. Why are those matters in primary legislation whereas, in clause 63, vouchers for benefits in kind are to be covered by Treasury regulations? In one case, we are using primary legislation and, in the other, we are broadening the net by requiring regulations under proposed new subsection 96A of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, as set out in clause 63. What was the guiding principle on the matter?

Dawn Primarolo (Paymaster General, HM Treasury; Bristol South, Labour)

The principle was to give us the flexibility to ensure that employment-related benefits that would otherwise be exempt from tax will remain so. A series of benefits are recognised as being employment related, which I am sure that no hon. Member would dispute. When we examined the issue of eye tests and corrective glasses for VDU users, it became clear that it was more sensible to have a regulation-making power to  enable their provision. That will give us the opportunity to respond far more quickly to issues on benefits generally agreed to be work related.