| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Higgins: In the light of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 49:
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be convenient to speak also to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. The purpose of this amendment is
Lord Goodhart: I support the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. It would be inappropriate to make the civil offences under Clause 9(3) absolute. This very simple and straightforward amendment provides that a reasonable excuse is an excuse. It is a wholly appropriate amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I am sure that this amendment is appropriate because similar wording is included in many other Acts.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: These amendments are mercifully simply and straightforward. There is a mercifully simple answer as well. The amendments seek to prevent a penalty being charged for failing to obtain information where there is a reasonable excuse for the failure. The penalties that noble Lords opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, are concerned about in this amendment are those imposed in Clause 9(3). The clause provides for a penalty to be imposed for failure to provide information or produce or deliver documents. It applies to powers to seek information from applicants and employers.
In fact, I am pleased to inform the Committee that the Bill already makes such provision. Clause 10(3) provides that Section 118(2) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 shall apply for the purposes of Clause 9(3). Section 118(2) of that Act states that,
Lord Higgins: I am not clear whether the noble Lord is accepting the amendment. In the circumstances of a switch from one department to another, why cannot we accept the amendment? I understood the noble Lord to be saying that. Rather than referring the matter back, is it not simpler to put the matter on the face of the Bill? As the noble Lord rightly said, it is a great deal clearer than the legislation still in force. Those reading this Bill will have some difficulty in remembering the previous legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is a perfectly adequate cross-reference between Clauses 9 and 10. I shall certainly ask the parliamentary draftsman to look at the matter again to see whether it can be simplified
Lord Higgins: We can certainly think about it between now and Report stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 52:
The noble Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, rightly said a moment or two ago, these amendments are related. I refer also to Amendments Nos. 53 and 54. The question is whether one should distinguish rather more clearly than does the Bill between "negligence" on the one hand and "fraud" on the other. Although I understand that it may be a rather subtle distinction in certain cases, it seems that there is a case for distinguishing between the two. As regards fraud, there is a case for prosecution.
That being so, we need to consider to what extent we should allow flexibility in these matters. As the matter stands, it appears to put negligence on the one hand and fraud on the other in the same package without making an important distinction, albeit one which it is not always easy to ascertain in practice. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I addressed the fundamental issue behind these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 48. I have some much more objectionable points up my sleeve which I did not believe it appropriate to raise before in case I deterred the noble Lord from moving the amendment.
This amendment seeks to make changes to the provisions for charging a financial penalty on someone who fraudulently or negligently provides incorrect information in response to a formal notice. The penalty provision, as drafted, is a backstop to powers which themselves will be used only when informal methods have failed. It is unlikely to be used much in practice. Therefore in that sense the amendment is far more limited in effect than the noble Lord would have wished.
Amendment No. 52 appears to be in conflict with Amendment No. 53. In order that the Inland Revenue may check the accuracy and honesty of applications for tax credit and ensure that payments are being made correctly by employers, the Bill contains a number of provisions requiring applicants and third parties to supply certain information when asked to do so by the Inland Revenue. To ensure that these powers are effective, there must be sanctions against the provision of incorrect information. Those sanctions are at Clause 9(5) which as drafted provides for a penalty of up to £3,000 where a person provides false information fraudulently or negligently. This is
It may be helpful if I explain what the amendments as drafted would actually do. Amendment No. 53 would apply the financial penalty only to cases where the information was supplied negligently. Amendment No. 54 would provide that fraudulent cases should be prosecuted. Amendment No. 52 appears to be in conflict with Amendment No. 53 since it would provide that this Clause 9(5) should apply only where the board was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that incorrect information had been provided fraudulently. That would appear to leave no room for the operation of Amendment No. 53, which applies in relation to negligence.
The amendments, taken together, would be contradictory, and taken separately--this is a much more important point--they are undesirable. Amendment No. 52 would place an unnecessarily high hurdle of proof in front of a civil penalty that is intended to apply to cases of negligence as well as to fraud. Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 would prevent the financial penalty being used in cases of fraud and would create a distinction between negligence and fraud which is really not needed and actually would be rather difficult to sustain in practice. This financial penalty is intended to be a short and simple deterrent to the provision of false information during the course of an Inland Revenue inquiry.
Amendment No. 54 is also unnecessary since a prosecution could be brought by the Inland Revenue where the provision of false information amounts to a criminal offence without the need for specific statutory authority. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendments.
Lord Higgins: As the parliamentary draftsman is undoubtedly paid a great deal more than I am, I am quite prepared to accept his interpretation of the amendments. I have just one further point to raise. As is now fashionable--indeed, I think it is now obligatory--when we first discussed the Bill the noble Baroness said that the Bill is in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights. Am I right in thinking that the related schedule to the clause we are now debating conforms fully with that convention? Will the Minister confirm that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes.
Lord Higgins: On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 5, line 11, after ("fails") insert ("without reasonable excuse")
"For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed not to have failed to do anything required of him to be done within a limited time if he did it within such further time, if any, as the Board or the Commissioners or officer concerned may have allowed; and where a person had a reasonable excuse for not doing anything required to be done he shall be deemed not to have failed to do it if he did it without unreasonable delay after the excuse had ceased".
I believe that the wording of this Bill is rather better than that of the 1970 legislation. That may have been before the noble Lord assumed office in the Heath government. Since the reference in Clause 10 to the Taxes Management Act covers exactly the point that the noble Lord has made, I hope that he feels it appropriate to withdraw the amendment.
Page 5, leave out line 28 and insert ("Where the Board is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that a person fraudulently--")
Before Clause 14, insert the following new clause--
(" . No regulations made under this Act shall reduce the entitlement to travelling expenses or remission of charges under section 83A of the National Health Service Act 1977 of a person in receipt of disabled person's tax credit, who would also have been so entitled had he been entitled to disability working allowance.")
The noble Lord said: The new clause I propose in this amendment states,
"No regulations made under this Act shall reduce the entitlement to travelling expenses or remission of charges under section 83A of the National Health Service Act 1977 of a person in receipt of disabled person's tax credit, who would also have been so entitled had he been entitled to disability working allowance".
In earlier debates we discussed the relationship between the disability working allowance and the disabled person's tax credit. I believe there is general agreement that the move from one to the other is probably advantageous. Nonetheless it is important that the benefits in the widest sense which accrued under the previous provisions--even though I hope that the new provisions will cover a greater number of people--should not be diminished. This amendment seeks to ensure that that is the case. On that basis I hope that the Government can accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page