Part of Finance Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 6:45 pm on 5 June 2007.
Mark Francois
Shadow Paymaster General
6:45,
5 June 2007
The background to the Government amendments to schedule 24 is the now somewhat infamous wording of “HMRC think”. Those words as included in the Bill would have given HMRC the power to penalise a taxpayer in cases in which it thought that they had done something wrong. Those highly controversial words were, in characteristic fashion, buried in the small print of the Budget and, despite a prior period of consultation on wider issues, took the accountancy profession somewhat by surprise when they were included in the Bill.
John Whiting, the respected PricewaterhouseCoopers tax expert, said in Financial Director magazine on 5 April that everyone had objected to the wording and expected that changes would have been made to the Bill. He said:
“The worry is ‘HMRC think’ is far too loose and arbitrary.”
John Cullinane, the then president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, followed that in a CIOT press release, dated 10 April and entitled, “Alice in Wonderland Tax Penalties”, which argued:
“When this was first suggested by HMRC, the CIOT objected, as did other bodies. On Budget day HMRC admitted that there was almost universal disquiet about the statutory formula ‘If HMRC think’...Despite objections to this subjective Clause, it remains in the draft legislation. The CIOT recognises that HMRC have engaged in constructive consultation over many issues. We are doubly disappointed that in this instance they do not appear to be listening.”
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales also raised serious concerns. In its Committee briefing for the Finance Bill, it says:
“Paragraph 1(1) includes the phrase ‘HMRC think.’ The Explanatory Notes to the Schedule suggest this is little more than the use of modem language. We disagree.”
The ICAEW went on to argue:
“‘HMRC thinks’ does not suggest that HMRC are using their best judgement or taking a reasonable approach. We believe this phrase will lead to confusion and court cases to determine its true meaning.”
For good measure, the London Society of Chartered Accountants, which is affiliated to ICAEW, simply said this about “HMRC think”:
“This is at best otiose and at worst adds an unnecessary ambiguity.”
It appears that Ministers picked up on the weight of professional Opposition to their proposal and a climbdown began. In the debate on HMRC powers in Committee of the Whole House, the Financial Secretary dropped a broad hint that some reversal would be forthcoming when he told the House:
“In recognition of the anxiety that has been expressed and in response to those representations that have been made, I intend to table an Amendment in the Public Bill Committee to clause 96 and to schedule 24 on civil penalties.”
He did better than that; he tabled more than a dozen. As the Financial Secretary may recall, I welcomed his comments at the time by saying in the next column:
“As the Minister mentioned it, may I say quickly that Conservative members welcome his admission that there has been concern on clause 96. We have received representations on the matter and we look forward to seeing his amendment in due course.” —[Official Report, 1 May 2007; Vol. 459, c. 1460-61.]
Now that we have the amendments before the Committee, in the same spirit, I welcome what the Minister is doing. Conservative Members think that he has done the right thing and that he has listened to the weight of professional opinion on the matter. Therefore, we support his amendments as they will improve the Bill.
As I understand it, there is one example in the schedule where the wording “HMRC think” will remain in the Bill. That is at paragraph 11(1), entitled “special reduction”, which will allow HMRC discretion in “special circumstances” to reduce the penalty but not to increase it. I think that the Minister said that that interpretation is correct and, if it is, will he briefly give some simple examples of what those sorts of special circumstances might be?
Finally, before concluding my discussion of the amendments, it would clearly be desirable to prevent such a situation from arising again. It would have been better if the Government had not gone there in the first place, so, with that in mind, will the Minister say how the situation came about? Were the words inserted on the insistence of Ministers, on the advice of parliamentary draftsmen, or did someone just get out of bed the wrong side one morning? What actually happened and how can we prevent it from happening again?
The clause by clause consideration of a parliamentary bill takes place at its committee stage.
In the Commons this usually takes place in a standing committee, outside the Chamber, but occasionally a bill will be considered in a committee of the Whole House in the main chamber.
This means the bill is discussed in detail on the floor of the House by all MPs.
Any bill can be committed to a Committee of the Whole House but the procedure is normally reserved for finance bills and other important, controversial legislation.
The Chairman of Ways and Means presides over these Committees and the mace is placed on a bracket underneath the Table.
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
The Opposition are the political parties in the House of Commons other than the largest or Government party. They are called the Opposition because they sit on the benches opposite the Government in the House of Commons Chamber. The largest of the Opposition parties is known as Her Majesty's Opposition. The role of the Official Opposition is to question and scrutinise the work of Government. The Opposition often votes against the Government. In a sense the Official Opposition is the "Government in waiting".
