Clause 48 - Disclosure of information contained in land transaction returns
Finance Bill
2:45 pm
Mark Francois (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Rayleigh, Conservative)
Thank you for your understanding earlier, Mr. Cook.
The amendments seek, in effect, to remove subsection (1)(d) of new section 78A, which as it is drafted provides a broad power for the passing on of information disclosed in land transaction returns. Clause 48 enables information on stamp duty land tax returns to be made available to the persons determined by Ministers by regulations—principally the Valuation Office Agency in Great Britain and its equivalent in Northern Ireland. However, new section 78A(1)(d) expands the definition considerably to include the potential use of such information:
''by such other persons or for such other purposes as the Treasury may by regulations prescribe.''
The explanatory notes on the clause say:
''The Inland Revenue was, and HM Revenue and Customs is, under a duty of confidentiality as regards information in its possession relating to the affairs of individual taxpayers. It follows that disclosure of such information is not permitted without statutory authority.''
So far, so good. It is nice to have that reassurance, but I am concerned that, in effect, the clause confers that statutory authority to pass such information to anyone whom Ministers deem fit to have it for whatever purpose they deem necessary at the time. That is an extremely broad definition that our amendment would rescind by returning to the narrower definition in the rest of the subsection.
On a related point about timing, subsection (5) points out that the powers under the clause may
''come into force on such a day as the Treasury may by order appoint.''
That could happen very quickly if the Treasury so chooses. However, the Economic Secretary's letter to the Committee of 16 June says:
''The Treasury have no plans at present to exercise this power.''
That letter then provides partial reassurance by promising full consultation with practitioners and other interested parties before any such changes are made, and holds out the potential for publication of a regulatory impact assessment in such circumstances. That is all well and good as far as it goes, but it still prompts the question why Ministers are so keen to bring in such a broad power to pass on taxpayer information given their present claim that they are reluctant to use it.
Perhaps the Minister could provide further information in his reply as to what is really behind all this to persuade we on the Opposition Benches not to press the amendments to a vote. As things currently stand, we are genuinely concerned by the brevity of the subsection.