Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
This is the last stage of an extensive consultation process over two years, involving previous 12-week consultations, dozens of meetings with interested parties and workshops. Knowing that time would be tight in March, HMRC raised key issues in meetings with stakeholders and sought suggestions for improvements. Changes to the draft law were identified and action was taken before the consultation period closed. All written responses were considered in detail and several changes were made in the final few days, as parliamentary draftsmen were about to be commissioned. A full response document was published on 27 March.
Since 2005, the review has issued 13 consultations and has had meetings with representative bodies and interested parties, as well as exposing draft legislation. That is to be commended as a form of consultation on the Governments intentions. HMRC has worked with representatives of business, the professions and low-income groups on guidance and codes of practice. For this years penalties changes, HMRC has made a particular effort to reach out to more specialist representatives for the particular taxes involvedfor example, the oil, alcohol and insurance industries.
I wish to put on the record my thanks to all those who have given their time to participate in the development of the measures in the Bill, with particular thanks to those who attended meetings with HMRC throughout, which meant that issues could be considered and addressed at an early stage
Jane Kennedy: I am about to come on to
Mike Penning: Where are the missing Members?
Jane Kennedy: I did not mean Members of Parliament: I meant stakeholders and interested parties. I have some interesting quotations from some organisations
Mike Penning: I apologise to the Minister, but I thought that she was talking about the missing Labour Members. One would think that they would be on the Back Benches to support her during the passage of the Bill.
Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is at liberty to make that point, but I am sorry that I gave way to him.
Mr. Newmark: I do not wish to rub salt into the Financial Secretarys wounds, but it is strange that some 300 Labour Members are floating somewhere around the House, but not a single one is on the Back Benches
The Temporary Chairman: Order. That is not a relevant intervention. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and I hope that the Financial Secretary will not take time to reply to it.
Jane Kennedy: I regret giving way and I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Nicholas.
Clause 117 is about creating a single penalty regime for incorrect tax returns to apply across taxes and duties administered by HMRC. It does that by extending the scope of schedule 24 of the Finance Act 2007 and
replacing the current separate and different regimes. The new penalties will be related to the amount of tax understated, the behaviouras the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) describedgiving rise to the understatement and the extent of disclosure by the taxpayer. Much more of the penalty framework will be set out in primary legislation than in the past and, together with appeal rights, which I would have thought would be singled out for approval, to an independent tribunal against all penalties, that will ensure greater consistency.
These provisions will repeal the large number of different penalty regimes that are specific to particular taxes and can be confusing for the taxpayer. Amendment No. 1A seeks to postpone applying the new penalties for the additional taxes for 12 months and until the new regimes effectiveness for the main taxes has been evaluated. Such a delay would be a huge missed opportunity to simplify, modernise and align penalties across HMRC, to enable clear deterrent messages to be sent and to move to a more effective and fair response to taxpayer errors.
Before the new penalties were even put forward for consideration in last years Finance Bill, HMRC undertook a review of settled cases, to assess the likely impact and effectiveness of the new penalties, and this, combined with international comparisons and the support of analysts and academic research, all helped in developing the overall structure. These penalties are a good example of evidence-based policy making.
In practice, holding introduction back by 12 months would actually mean three to four years delay, because meaningful evaluation could not be started until sufficient cases had been worked and completed. As with all proposals in the review of powers, deterrents and safeguards, the penalties reforms have been the subject of extensive consultation since 2006. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales wrote:
We think it would be sensible to have a single system of penalties for incorrect returns across the tax system.
The Chartered Institute of Taxation concurred:
We are pleased to note the proposals by HMRC to extend the Finance Act 2007 approach for the main taxes to other taxes, which is in line with our comments in earlier consultations.
The Association of British Insurers, which is not always in favour of Government proposals, wrote:
The benefits of aligning penalties for incorrect returns across taxes outweigh any difficulties.
The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners said in relation to inheritance tax:
The principle of alignment of penalty regimes is logically sound and appropriate to the taxes that affect trusts, estates and their administration. It is appreciated that alignment of penalties will simplify the structure.
I could continue with other such positive quotes, but I detect a degree of twitchiness in the Committee about the length of time that I am taking. However, this is an important debate and I wish to respond seriously to the measured points that have been made on occasion by Opposition Members.
Amendment No. 2A calls for the Treasury order commencing the penalties for the additional taxes to be made under the affirmative procedure. That would be contrary to the normal practice for commencement
orders in tax matters, which are usually made under the negative procedure. I can recall that between 1992 and 1997 I made similar points to those made by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire and his colleagues. In those days, a popular way for the Opposition to extend the length of a debate was to make a routine and well worked complaint about the conduct of the Government. We learned the lesson of where the previous Government had got it right in terms of administering legislation, and we implemented that lesson.
Mr. Gauke: Is the right hon. Lady saying that she was wrong when she raised those points in opposition?
Jane Kennedy: I am saying that I learned a lesson. When I came into government, I was able to appreciate that the previous Government had done some things that were right. We therefore adopted those measures.
I see no sensible reason why an exception should be made in this matter. The order will simply set out the dates from which the new penalties will apply for the additional taxes and is expected to be very similar to the commencement order made in March this year for the 2007 penalties. We expect the order to state that the new penalties will apply to all the additional taxes at the same time. That will be for return periods starting on or after 1 April 2009. That is 12 months after the commencement of the 2007 penalties.
Moving swiftly on, amendments Nos. 3A and 4A would remove from clause 117 provisions to make incidental, consequential or transitional changes by Treasury order in connection with the new penalties for error. The use of those words has been picked up on by Opposition Members, but they are necessary phrases that form part of the legislative process. The fact that we have a Parliament indicates that legislation has to be revisited from time to time in the light of new circumstances in which it applies. The amendments would make the Treasurys order-making power completely ineffective, presumably in an attempt to prevent the new penalties for errors from ever coming into effect for the additional taxes set out in schedule 40. They seem to contradict amendment No. 1A, which merely seeks to delay the start. It could be that that is a probing approach, and I am sure that we will return to the subject in Committee.
All the substantive changes to primary legislation are included in schedule 40, which is due to be debated at a later time. In order to have a smooth transition from the numerous old penalty regimes that are being repealed to the single new behaviour-based penalty regime for errors, a number of minor consequential and transitional changes to the law are required. I believe that they are minor, consequential and transitional changes. However, as I said at the beginning, I do not take an ideological or partisan position on these measures. I am listening to the representations made by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire and by his hon. Friends, and those made by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall.
If amendments Nos. 3A and 4A were accepted, that would leave the legislation unclear and untidy. Surely that cannot be right. I hope that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire will withdraw his amendments. If he chooses not to do so, I am afraid that we must resist them.
Mr. Gauke: As ever, the Financial Secretary presents her case in a reasonable tone, but I will disappoint her as I have not been convinced by her arguments about protecting Parliaments position in scrutinising legislation in this area or about the concerns that the consultation has been insufficient and the measures have been rushed through. She quoted the Institute of Chartered Accountants. If I may, I shall quote its remarks in its briefing for the Committee of the whole House. It said:
The FA 2007 penalty provisions are far-reaching and we think it is right that these recently introduced provisions should be given time to bed down before consideration is given to extending them further.
I intend to press amendments Nos. 1A and 3A to a vote. If it emerges that the Labour Back Benchers who attended the debate were so persuaded by my arguments that we are successful, I might look to press the other amendments to a vote. If that does not happenthat is a distinct possibility, given that there were no Labour Back Benchers presentI shall press only those two amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made:
Amendment proposed: No. 3A, page 73, line 13, leave out subsections (4) to (6). [Mr. Gauke.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:
Next Section | Index | Home Page |