Clause 7 - Charge to income tax on lump sum
Finance Bill
11:30 am
Philip Hammond (Shadow Chief Secretary To the Treasury, Treasury; Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
These two small amendments would clarify measures that we believe have been poorly drafted. Amendment No. 64 deals with line 9 of the clause, which states:
''For the purposes of the Tax Acts (including subsection (5)), a social security pension lump sum . . . is to be treated'',
and so on. On first reading of the clause, I and others whom I have consulted were not clear to which subsection (5) reference was being made. Looking at it more closely, it is clear that the sentence is intended to mean that
''For the purposes of the Tax Acts . . . a social security pension lump sum''
will be defined in the way set out in subsection (2) for all purposes, including the purposes of subsection (5). So, the ''subsection (5)'' referred to is not a subsection (5) in the ''Tax Acts'', which is a plural concept, but subsection (5) of clause 7. The amendment would simply insert the word ''below'' to make it perfectly clear—well, clearer—that the wording refers to subsection (5) below.
When I looked at the clause again this morning, it occurred to me that the wording would perhaps be even clearer if it read: ''For the purposes of the Tax Acts, including for the purposes of subsection (5) below, a social security pension lump sum'' and so on. The amendment is simply intended to clarify the not-very-clear drafting, and to make it plain that all subsection (2) does is refer the definition of
''social security pension lump sum''
to subsection (5).
Amendment No. 65 raises another small but important point. The inclusion of subsections (6) to (8) is, dare I say, revolutionary. Is the idea that at the end of every clause there will be a series of subsections telling us what future sections will do? That would be like watching a television serial in which, at the end of the week's episode, there is a series of clips showing what is coming in future. Subsections (6) to (8) do not seem remotely necessary. As far as I am aware, those provisions do not accord with precedent, and if we applied the principle consistently it would massively bulk out the volume of legislation with which we have to deal—which is already, frankly, too large—and bring yet more pages of tax statutes into force. I can see no reason for the subsections, and I am rather concerned about this architectural innovation.