Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
John Healey: If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come on to the sort of problems that would be caused by the flawed way in which the provisions in new clauses 2 and 7 are framed.
There are many precedents, going back many years, for Acts of Parliament and resolutions that take effect from dates before the date on which they are debated and voted on by the House. Subsections (7) and (8) of new clause 2 set out conditions under which retrospective tax law would be compatible with subsection (1). Subsections (2) and (3) of new clause 7 set out the same conditions under which retrospective tax law could be introduced in accordance with subsection (1). The first condition is that some eventmost likely a court judgmenthas changed the interpretation of the law contrary to the reasonable expectations of tax practitioners. That phrase is defined in new clause 2(8) and new clause 7(3). A moments thought would encourage one to conclude that it would be extremely difficult to determine what the reasonable expectations of such a diverse body as tax practitioners would be.
The second condition in both new clauses is that a scheme has been disclosed to Her Majestys Revenue and Customs. I think that this is the point that the right hon. Member for Wokingham was making. However, although the term tax avoidance scheme appears in the titles of the legislation referred to in the new clauses, it is not defined anywhere in UK legislation. The descriptions used in primary legislationprincipally in part 7 of the Finance Act 2004and in regulations are targeted at avoidance, but they do not define it. In effect, they are proxies for new and innovative schemes, as these often carry the highest risk of avoidance. But not every scheme that is notifiable is avoidance and, equally, since the descriptions must strike a balance between countering avoidance and imposing unnecessary or burdensome responsibilities on business, they will not capture every avoidance scheme.
New clause 2(6) and new clause 7(7) would further give the provisions effect in situations where the tax change may affect a pricing decision that has already been made by a company, even when the measure applied only to tax points that occurred after the measure had been passed by the House. It cannot be the casealthough it appears to be from the way in which the provisions are framedthat hon. Members seriously propose that the House should be alerted in any case in which a change to tax rates has an impact on a commercial decision or arrangement that has already been entered into. Again, a moments thought would lead one to suggest that that might apply to virtually any tax change. In general, any tax change has the potential to have an impact on such decisions.
It is difficult to envisage why the provisions are necessary. The Chancellor must certify that any retrospective measure is human rights-compatible. Parliament has the ability to consider all the factors raised in the new clauses when debating such a measure. The drafting of the new clauses is fundamentally flawed. The measures would have far wider consequences than even the hon. Member for Christchurch might intend. Following the reassurances that I have given, I hope
that neither of the new clauses will be pressed to a Division. If they are, I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to resist them.
Mr. Paul Goodman: The debate has demonstrated the widespread concern throughout the House about creeping retrospection, as was evident from the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark). The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) reminded the House of a point that I omitted to make: the issue of retrospection was very live when we considered trusts during our proceedings on last years Finance Bill. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) also made that point. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) was sympathetic to new clause 2. To borrow a phrase from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), we are seeing a large pincer movement on the Government.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who strongly opposes the rise in air passenger duty. He is also concerned about retrospection and I am grateful to him for pressing the issue in such a way.
My hon. Friend was right about the pincer movement on the Government because the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said shortly after I finished my speech that she opposed new clause 2, but that her opposition would be justified retrospectively. That set the tone for the debate. She has been joined on the Labour Benches by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). He is in the Chamber retrospectively, given that he was here in spirit right from the start of the debate.
The Financial Secretary, like the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, produced a scant argument. He says that the considerations already apply and that new clause 2 is badly drafted, but subsection (1)(b) of the new clause would allow him to introduce any measure and simply claim that it would be justified, despite being retrospective, for the reasons that he wished to set out to the House. However, he did not address that point at all.
Having heard the Financial Secretarys argument, if new clause 2 were agreed to, I would be happy to accept amendments (a) and (c) to it, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. I would look sympathetically on new clause 7, which he also tabled. We will press new clause 2 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
(1) It shall be the duty of HMRC to determine applications for
within a maximum period of days from the receipt by them of the relevant application.
(2) The Treasury must by Order specify the maximum period mentioned in subsection (1), having first consulted HMRC and persons representing small businesses.
(3) If an application of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) has not been determined by HMRC before the expiry of the maximum period specified by the Treasury in accordance with subsection (2), the applicant may apply to the Special Commissioners for a declaration that the application is deemed to have been approved by HMRC.
(4) The Special Commissioners must grant an application for a declaration under subsection (3) unless they are satisfied that HMRC has reasonable grounds for having failed to determine an application in accordance with subsections (1) and (2).
(5) Grounds shall be treated as reasonable under subsection (4) only if they relate to circumstances beyond HMRCs control.. [Mr. Gauke.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Gauke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 2.
Mr. Gauke: Before I deal with new clause 4, let me say a few words about Government amendment No. 2 and return to the comments made by the Financial Secretary earlier. As he said, on my debut on the Front Bench in Committee, he generously agreed to amend the Bill to require an affirmative resolution where the joint and several liability requirements are to be extended, as in clause 97. He has been as good as his word, and I welcome the amendment.
New clause 4 would require that the Treasury, in consultation with Her Majestys Revenue and Customs, specify a maximum period for HMRC to determine an application for VAT registration or VAT repayment. If it were not determined within the period specified, the applicant could apply to the special commissioners for a declaration of approval to be granted, unless the commissioners determined that HMRC had reasonable grounds for failing to determine the application. The reason for tabling the new clause is the widespread and growing concern that VAT applications, whether for registrations or repayments, are taking substantially longer than previously, and substantially longer than the target times specified by HMRC.
I should say at the outset that I recognise that part of the reason for the delays is action that is being taken to try to tackle missing trader intra-CommunityMITCfraud, which has a substantial cost. We recognise and support the Governments view that action needs to be taken. We also accept that, in fighting MTIC fraud, there is a role for ensuring that only legitimate companies become registered for VAT and only companies with clean hands receive VAT repayments. I have received some representations stating that the VAT registration process should have been tightened at an earlier stage in order to address the issue.
It is not our intention to disrupt attempts by the Government to tackle MTIC fraud. Indeed, new clause 4 is so drafted that if HMRC had good reason for delaying a registration or repayment it would be able to do so, and of course tackling fraud is a good reason. However, I hope that the new clause will give us a chance to explore whether the problems with registration and repayment are entirely due to MTIC fraud, and whether the balance is right between tackling fraud and ensuring that legitimate businesses are not harmed and that their activities are facilitated. I also hope to explore the question of whether there is any prospect of an improvement in performance by HMRC in this area. I will listen carefully to what the Financial Secretary says when he responds, and if he persuades me that the new clause would harm efforts to tackle MITC fraud, I will not press it. None the less, we wait to hear those arguments.
Essentially, there are two closely related problems: VAT registrations and VAT repayments. This is not a new issue. I raised the question of VAT registrations last summer in the Standing Committee on last years Finance Bill. I subsequently raised it with senior HMRC officials when I was a member of the Treasury Committee and they gave evidence on HMRCs performance to the Treasury Sub-Committee. It is
worth looking at the evidence that they provided. Paul Gray, the chairman, stated that VAT registrations was
one of those areas where we have had probably the greatest degree of pressure and the performance certainly was not as good as I might have hoped.
His colleague, Mike Eland, added:
Next Section | Index | Home Page |