Mr.
Hoban: Having looked at “Halsbury’s Laws of
England”, pedantry might come into play in future debates on
this
issue. Finally,
I go back to the issue of whether tax gains or losses will be attached
to introducing the statutory residence test. As I understand it, the
Treasury has said that the test in clause 22 will lead to an increase
in revenue of about £50 million, with 17,000 being treated as
residents and 7,000 people changing their behaviour to avoid being
treated as residents. Will the Financial Secretary elaborate on the
basis of those calculations? How does the Treasury determine the
behavioural changes that the clause will bring about? How does it know
that 17,000 people will be caught, when perhaps if they are
well advised they will not be? In the debate on statutory
residence—the Minister has indicated her interest in it—I
would like to think that spurious calculations of losses and gains got
in the way of producing a rule in the best interests of the economy as
a whole. We believe
that there is a strong case for a statutory residence regime, but agree
with the Financial Secretary, based on her earlier remarks, that more
needs to be done to establish a set of clear, certain rules that will
reduce the costs of compliance on both the taxpayer and HMRC. Taxpayers
spend a lot of money on advice to determine whether they fall within
the scope of the rules. If we can move away from that to a much more
certain and clear system, it will strengthen Britain’s
reputation as a place to do business. The best way to crystallise the
Treasury’s thinking on the matter is to require it to
lay a report before Parliament by 31 December
2008.
Mr.
Browne: I seek your guidance, Sir Nicholas. I appreciate
the premium that the Committee puts on brevity, but I would like more
than a minute or so to talk about new clause 5. With your indulgence
and that of the Government Whip, I was hoping
that—
The
Chairman: I accept that as a point of order. Having
accepted it and understood what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I look to
the hon. Member for Waveney to move the adjournment
motion. Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
Blizzard.] Adjourned
accordingly at four minutes to seven o’clock till Thursday 19
June at Nine
o’clock.
| 
