Mr John Burnett: I hope that the House will understand that this part of the Bill is causing widespread disquiet, and that, far from affecting only a few people, it could affect many millions of people in this country. I shall return to that point later. I hope that you will allow those of us who catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to range fairly widely on this matter. It is complex, and it is therefore...
Mr John Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the choice is not as simple as that, but is more like Hobson's choice in certain circumstances? For example, to avoid French inheritance tax laws, shares may be owned by a company that owns property in France. In those circumstances, the shares might attract relief but the property does not. That has most unfortunate consequences.
Mr John Burnett: I fail to perceive the relevance of the previous intervention. My understanding is that gifts of reversionary interest do not attract inheritance tax.
Mr John Burnett: But that is simply not good enough. So much time has elapsed, and those people have been unlawfully detained for an extremely long time. We want to know what action the Attorney-General will take. He made his views known last week in a speech at the Cour de Cassation, and was right to say: "Any restriction on fundamental rights must be imposed in accordance with the rule of law." He went on...
Mr John Burnett: I wish to say a few words as chairman of the pension fund and a member of the Members' fund. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has performed valuable work for both funds, as he is extremely conscientious and pays great attention to detail. The whole House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), whose chairmanship of the pension fund...
Mr John Burnett: I am trying to think of a practical example to demonstrate what I said earlier. The Paymaster General has an amused look, but I am going to do my best. It could be that someone giving detailed corporate tax advice as a specialist gives a corporate plan, perhaps to comply with stock exchange regulations, and the plan is used and taken to tax specialists. There is such a level of expertise and...
Mr John Burnett: I have already disclosed that I am a lawyer, although I do not practise. To be even-handed, I should allude to points made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. It would like the Inland Revenue to clarify some things. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify her interpretation of the interaction between legal professional privilege and the duty to make a return under clause 298....
Mr John Burnett: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my intervention apropos amendment No. 368. Does not he agree that there could in some circumstances be a promoter who is unaware that the arrangements are for tax avoidance, or that the transaction concerned forms part of tax-avoidance arrangements, and that, in those circumstances, there should not be a liability on such a person?
Mr John Burnett: The Paymaster General has talked about highly professional and able people, but they have a right to know where they stand as well. Have I understood her correctly? Does a proposal becomes notifiable when it is sold or when it is marketed to the public?
Mr John Burnett: Will the Paymaster General give way?
Mr John Burnett: I, too, am grateful to the Paymaster General. I would just like to leave her with a couple of points to consider. This relates to fairness for the taxpayer. Will the Inland Revenue publish its anonymised rulings in relation to the schemes? Will those rulings be available to taxpayers as a form of guidance? That would be a considerable help. In addition, the Revenue is quite often well aware...
Mr John Burnett: I will avoid any reference to that case. You quite rightly intervened at that point, Mr. McWilliam. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs has made a powerful point, which he grafted on to the point that I made earlier. We cannot allow the Inland Revenue to chop and change. I want to see a system of anonymised reporting, and if the Revenue makes a ruling, we cannot have it...
Mr John Burnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr John Burnett: Those regulations are not entirely clear. The hon. Gentleman is aware of that. That has been the tenor of the Paymaster General's comments in the past half hour.
Mr John Burnett: Difficult to what?
Mr John Burnett: I will deal with the facile interventions made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West later. The Paymaster General has kindly dwelt at some length on the points I asked her about, and about which the primary legislation is immensely nebulous, although I shall leave that to one side. The Paymaster General talked earlier about wanting to catch transactions where the tax benefit...
Mr John Burnett: Unacceptably what?
Mr John Burnett: I simply do not understand that point—it must be a matter of principle, and it is not a matter of the extent of the taxation.
Mr John Burnett: Will the Paymaster General give way?
Mr John Burnett: I am grateful for that intervention. There was a series of cases. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, Ramsay was a leading case, but Ramsay is rather more complex, as I am sure he would concede. It was followed by another case—it usually comes to mind smartly, but it is not doing so at the moment, for which I apologise—which effectively said that, if a step were imposed in a tax-avoidance...