PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL

Fifth Sitting Thursday 28 October 2010

CONTENTS

CLAUSE 27 agreed to. SCHEDULE 11 agreed to. CLAUSE 28 agreed to. SCHEDULE 12 agreed to. CLAUSE 29 agreed to. SCHEDULE 13 agreed to. CLAUSES 30 and 31 agreed to. SCHEDULE 14 agreed to. CLAUSES 32 and 33 agreed to. Bill, as amended, to be reported.

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £4·00 PBC (Bill 072) 2010 - 2011 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.

No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 1 November 2010

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2010 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 131 Public Bill Committee28 OCTOBER 2010 Finance (No. 2) Bill 132

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: MARTIN CATON

† Brown, Lyn (West Ham) (Lab) † Harrington, Richard (Watford) (Con) † Burt, Lorely (Solihull) (LD) † Leslie, Chris (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op) † Elphicke, Charlie (Dover) (Con) † McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab) † Evans, Chris (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) † McGovern, Alison (Wirral South) (Lab) † Gauke, Mr David (Exchequer Secretary to the † Mordaunt, Penny (Portsmouth North) (Con) Treasury) Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP) † Sharma, Alok (Reading West) (Con) † Gilmore, Sheila (Edinburgh East) (Lab) † Shelbrooke, Alec (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) † Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) † Williams, Stephen (Bristol West) (LD) (Con) † Greening, Justine (Economic Secretary to the Simon Patrick, Committee Clerk Treasury) † Hanson, Mr David (Delyn) (Lab) † attended the Committee 133 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Finance (No. 2) Bill 134

This is a fairly strong Henry VIII power. It is incumbent Public Bill Committee on the Minister to explain the circumstances in which he would use it, in the same way as, when I was a Thursday 28 October 2010 Minister, I had to explain the circumstances in which I would use a power. I remind the hon. Gentleman of that because I served for 13 years as a Minister in the [MARTIN CATON in the Chair] previous Government and on numerous occasions, in relation to numerous Bills that granted similar powers, Finance (No. 2) Bill Opposition Members questioned me on exactly how I would use the powers downstream. Therefore, it is only fair that I give the Minister the opportunity to reflect on Clause 27 these matters accordingly. Subsection (6) states: PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO PAY TAX “An order under this section is to be made by statutory instrument.” 9am It is important that we know whether the Minister believes that such a statutory instrument would be Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the subject to the affirmative procedure. Alternatively, would Bill. the Opposition be required to pray against the instrument if we want to examine matters in a more detailed way? Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): Good morning, Again, we have no objection to the clause in principle, Mr Caton. Whatever happens, this is our last day in but we want clarification on certain points. Committee. We shall debate from clause 27 to clause 33, Subsection (7) states: as well as the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the “A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (4) Member for Nottingham East, and I hope that we shall which includes provision amending or repealing any provision of make progress as speedily as we can. an Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the The Opposition have no problem with the policy House of Commons.” objectives of clause 27, but I would like to test the Will the Minister give some indication of how that will Minister, because the clause gives him and the Treasury work? wide powers to implement provisions at a future date. I do not wish to cause the Minister too much grief on Subsection (2) states the principle of the clause. We support it, because “Schedule 11 comes into force on such day as the Treasury may penalties for failure to pay tax are important. Schedule by order appoint.” 56 to the Finance Act 2009 is important; it was passed Will the Minister say which day and which time the by the previous Government. Given the wide-ranging Treasury might by order appoint for implementation of nature of the powers that we are seconding to him, the said provision following Royal Assent? I ask that however, will the Minister give some indication of how because the clause gives him a wide implementation he might choose to exercise them? power. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Subsection (3) states: Gauke): It is a pleasure, Mr Caton, to serve under your “An order under subsection (2)…(a) may commence a provision chairmanship for one last time on the Bill. generally or only for specified purposes, and…(b) may appoint Before dealing with clause 27, I return briefly to different days for different provisions or for different purposes.” schedule 2, which we considered earlier in our proceedings. That, too, gives the Minister a wide power to reflect on We did not debate the schedule, and as a consequence I the issues and bring in, at different times, provisions have failed to mention something that could be usefully relating to the specified purposes under clause 27. I put on record: the changes to venture capital schemes would welcome an outline of his thinking on introduced under that schedule will made through a implementation of the clause. commencement order, and it is our intention to bring in Subsection (4) is also a very wide provision, so the the changes from next April. I hope that the Committee Minister needs to put on record his approach to the will forgive me for digressing. issues. The subsection states: I now turn to clause 27 and the points made by the “The Treasury may by order make any incidental, supplemental, right hon. Member for Delyn. As we heard, the clause is consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision which part the ongoing review of Her Majesty’s Revenue and appears appropriate in consequence of, or otherwise in connection Customs, and it marks the completion of the third stage with, that Schedule.” of penalties reform under the review. There are currently I know that it is probably common practice to put in a variety of different penalties for late payments across place such a wide power, but it is important that the different taxes, and some have no sanction for late Minister gives some indication of the circumstances in payment. The changes before us add 15 further taxes which he would exercise it. In the event of the clause and duties to the new aligned structure that was legislated receiving the approval of both Houses, we will be giving for last year. As with the changes made in clause 26, him great power to vary the penalties for failure to these new taxes are all indirect taxes or excise duties. pay tax. The new penalty structure will be more effective in Subsection (5) states: influencing behaviour, as well as fairer and more “An order under subsection (4) may…(a) make different provision proportionate. It is important that HMRC makes every for different purposes, and…(b) make provision amending, repealing effort to support taxpayers in meeting their tax obligations, or revoking any Act or subordinate legislation whenever passed but it is equally important that the consequences for or made (including this Act and any Act amended by it).” failing to meet those obligations are made clear. 135 Public Bill Committee28 OCTOBER 2010 Finance (No. 2) Bill 136

An extensive series of consultations led to the first important that the consequences of failing to meet tranche of legislation in the Finance Act 2009. Following those obligations are clear. Effective and proportionate that Act, HMRC published a draft of the current penalties will tackle late filing and reassure the compliant provisions on 9 December 2009 and invited comments. majority that the system is fair. I therefore hope that the We listened to the many responses from key stakeholders Committee will support the clause. and representative bodies and made changes as a result. Question put and agreed to. For example, we refined the VAT payments on account Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. mechanism to be as easily understood as possible. Throughout the consultation, the reforms were broadly Schedule 11 agreed to. supported by key stakeholders and representative bodies. The new penalty structures and safeguards will require changes to HMRC’s IT systems and business processes. It will also require substantial advance publicity to Clause 28 taxpayers and their advisers to ensure that people are ready for the changes. That is why the schedule is to be brought into force by Treasury order, which will allow RECOVERY OF OVERPAID STAMP DUTY LAND TAX AND for implementation in stages. HMRC plans to implement PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX ETC the changes as and when resources permit and when Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the sensible opportunities arise. That touches on one of the Bill. questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman also asked when the changes in clarification to the law will come into effect. For Mr Hanson: I confirm that the Opposition support amendments that relate to last year’s enactments, which the clause in principle for similar reasons that applied have already come into effect, HMRC intends to lay an when it had its genesis under the previous Labour appointed-day order before the House shortly after Government. I have no general problems with it. However, Royal Assent. The changes will mainly affect the operation it is fair that I outline to the Committee the concerns of late payments penalties for pay-as-you-earn, which expressed to me by the Chartered Institute of Taxation came into effect on 6 April 2010. However, as they are about several matters relating to the clause and schedule based on an annual appraisal of an employer’s payment 12 so that the Minister will have an opportunity to obligations, penalties will not start to be issued until consider and respond to them accordingly. May 2011. The Chartered Institute of Taxation states that it is The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of unclear why proposed new paragraph 34C(2) of schedule 10 Henry VIII clauses. He said, quite fairly, that he frequently to the Finance Act 2003 excludes paragraph 6, which had to defend such clauses as a Minister. In a spirit of covers the responsibility of partners, and paragraph 8, candour, it is fair to say that I often queried them when which includes representative partners under schedule 15 I was an Opposition spokesman. to the Finance Act 2003, and introduces a new concept The harmonisation of penalties requires the untangling of relevant persons as claimants for partnerships. Relevant of a great deal of old and complex tax legislation, and persons are defined under proposed new paragraph 34C(5) the clause is designed purely to enable HMRC to make as necessary amendments, savings or repeals easily. Given “(a) any person who was a partner in the partnership at an the nature and scale of the changes, the broad power of effective date of the transaction, and…(b) the personal representative amendment is needed to facilitate accurate consequential of such a person.” amendments or transitional provisions, as it is not That differs from the definition under paragraph 6 of possible to predict what changes to the current law will schedule 15 to the 2003 Act, which defines responsible be required in the future. An identical approach was partners in respect of anything required to be done taken under the Finance Act 2009 in respect of measures under part 2 of that Act as that introduced the basic structure for the alignment of “(a) the persons who are partners at the effective date of the penalties, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will transaction, and…(b) any person who becomes a member of the appreciate that the powers relate clearly to that specific partnership after the effective date of the transaction.” area and not more broadly. The Chartered Institute of Taxation’s worry about The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the orders that misty new definition is that the meaning of “relevant will be subject to the affirmative procedure. They will be person” mirrors the definition of “relevant partner”, made under the negative procedure, which is consistent but it is unclear why there is a departure from the with what has been done elsewhere within the penalties provisions of part 2 of the 2003 Act. The institute regime. As always, HMRC will publish a draft order in believes that that will add complexity to the administration advance, which is particularly important if the statutory of stamp duty land tax. instrument amends primary legislation. The Government I should welcome the Minister’s view on that because will make sure that there is proper consultation on the institute has ultimately to work with the legislation changes of the law. I hope that he will accept my and advise people on stamp duty. It believes that there is assurances on that point. a difficulty with the definition of “relevant person”, The provisions have been subject to thorough and that there are differences in the Bill between the consultation. They were well supported by most respondents schedule and the Finance Act 2003. I should be grateful and have been refined to reflect their comments. The if the Minister would comment on that and I hope he result is a major step forward in modernising and can clarify the measure so that those who read our aligning penalties. It is important that HMRC supports proceedings and interpret them will understand the taxpayers to meet their tax obligations, but it is equally intention of the schedule and clause. 137 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Finance (No. 2) Bill 138

9.15 am The right hon. Gentleman also raised proposed new The Chartered Institute of Taxation has also commented paragraph 34C(3), which states that a claim about proposed new paragraph 34C(3)(a), which states “may be made by a relevant person” that a claim rather than that it shall be made. It is worth pointing “may be made by a relevant person who has been nominated”— out that it is not mandatory for anyone to make a claim. and it has highlighted the word “may”. However, sub- Someone who thinks that they have overpaid stamp paragraph (3)(b) states that a claim duty land tax must decide whether they want to claim “may not be made by any other person.” overpayment relief, which is why the measure states that the claim “may be made”, not that it shall be made. The provision in question is therefore mandatory, and the institute believes that the drafting should reflect If stamp duty land tax has been paid in respect of a that, with the substitution of “shall” for “may”. partnership land transaction, all the partners involved, or their personal representatives, must agree who is to We have not tabled an amendment to that effect make a claim, and the provision ensures that there is because I did not feel strongly enough to do so. However, agreement between the partners before a claim is made. it is important to get clarity from the Minister about the I hope that that provides some clarity about the thinking concerns that have been raised by the Chartered Institute behind the provisions to the right hon. Gentleman and of Taxation over the interpretation of the new paragraph. those who read our debates with interest, and that I Does he think that it is sufficiently clear to enable the have dealt with the concerns raised by the Chartered institute’s members to deal with the relevant matters Institute of Taxation. effectively as part of their general duties? Question put and agreed to. As I have said, the Opposition support the changes to stamp duty land tax and petroleum revenue tax under Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. the clause. However, I should be grateful for the Minister’s Schedule 12 agreed to. response to my comments about the representations that I have received. Clause 29

Mr Gauke: Clause 28 introduces schedule 12, which EXCISE DUTIES: COMPLIANCE CHECKS amends the existing relief for mistakes in stamp duty land tax returns, and error or mistake relief for petroleum Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the revenue tax. That is part of the modernisation of error Bill. or mistake relief provisions, which introduces a single route to recover overpaid tax. It extends the scope of Mr Hanson: Once again—I am sounding like a broken the current relief and excludes common law claims in record—I am happy to support the general principles of respect of overpaid tax. the clause. By providing a final opportunity for taxpayers to Although this is not one of the more contentious reclaim overpayments subject to a single time limit—four Finance Bills, we are still required to scrutinise it. I want years, as with other claims—the measure simplifies the Minister to address the concerns that have been the process for reclaiming overpayments. It reduces the raised with me and other members of the Committee by administrative burden for taxpayers and HMRC, and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. I accept that there provides greater certainty regarding public finances. has been consultation and that these points have been The changes will take effect from 1 April 2011, allowing made, but in its submissions to me the institute raised further time for claims to be made under the current concerns about the need for adequate safeguards in regime. relation to the powers under the compliance checks. It is HMRC invited responses to the draft legislation in concerned that the safeguards provided are inadequate. January and February, and when the draft Finance Bill I am not making a judgment on that, but it is important was published in July. We have received comments from that the Minster should reflect on it and consider whether the Chartered Institute of Taxation—the right hon. there is merit to those concerns. Member for Delyn referred to those and raised a couple The Chartered Institute of Taxation believes it would of points about them. First, on to the concept of be helpful for there to be guidelines and advice to the relevant persons as opposed to responsible partners, in officers who will deal with the implementation of the the matter of deciding who can make a claim, responsible measure, and I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance partners include the current members of a partnership about that. When officers use the powers that deal and anyone who was a partner at the date of the specifically with the exercise of subjective judgments, transaction. Responsible partners are responsible for those powers should be reflected in published information making a tax return and for other administrative matters. about how and on what those judgments were made. However, it is the partners at the date of the transaction The institute believes that the Treasury should accept alone who are jointly and severally liable for the tax that recommendations to ensure that guidelines for officers is due. are published and that when subjective and marginal Overpayment relief allows those who have overpaid decisions are taken, the officers themselves should be an amount of tax in respect of a land transaction to open to scrutiny. reclaim that sum. Relevant persons are those who were The Chartered Institute of Taxation advises that HMRC liable to pay the tax or their personal representatives. will examine in detail the previous recommendations Therefore it is those persons who must decide who and release draft guidance to the officers who are going among them should make the claim, which explains the to implement the judgments before the powers come introduction of the concept of relevant persons in this into effect. I raise the issue so that the Minister can context. reflect on it and consider whether she agrees that detailed 139 Public Bill Committee28 OCTOBER 2010 Finance (No. 2) Bill 140 guidance should be provided to officers about how they tax regime for registered pension schemes. As members will be managed downstream, at the coal face of taxation of the Committee will know, NEST is a new pension issues. If she does not wish to follow that route, can she scheme that has been established by the Secretary of reassure those who take an interest in such matters that State for Work and Pensions under section 67 of the those concerns are unfounded? Pensions Act 2008. The NEST provisions, which had their genesis under the last Labour Government, will The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine ensure that pension entitlement is provided to individuals Greening): Thank you, Mr Caton. It is a pleasure to across the sector, and that such people are helped to serve under your chairmanship on this final day of the save for their pension with the support of employers third Finance Bill of the year. and of the state as a whole. Clause 29 introduces schedule 13, which amends provisions covering excise compliance checks. HMRC The changes will have effect from the date on which has been reviewing powers and safeguards for checking the Bill receives Royal Assent. In December 2006, the compliance. Previous Finance Acts introduced a modernised then Labour Government published a White Paper and aligned checking framework, which now applies outlining their workplace pensions reform—including across HMRC’s other taxes and duties. Schedule 13 the NEST proposal, which was previously called the completes that work. personal accounts scheme. That led to the pensions Excise is a specialised type of regime. The key risks reform set out in the 2008 Act, the contributions for are in the goods themselves, and therefore access to which will be phased in over a period of time. In one those goods is crucial. Excise fraud in alcohol, tobacco way—I will return to this in a moment—I am pleased and oil is a major risk to the Exchequer, to legitimate that the new Government have committed themselves businesses and to consumers. For that reason, the to implementing, broadly, the provisions that the previous Government have taken a different approach to the Government had put in place. powers and amended them rather than align excise The provisions introduce automatic enrolment as an within the framework that applies to other taxes. effective means of increasing pension savings. The “Making As the right hon. Gentleman said, the proposals have Automatic Enrolment Work” review was announced on been subject to two full formal consultations since July 24 June 2010 by the Government, who wanted to look 2009, and draft legislation was published in January at the commitments of the previous Labour Government and again this summer. The responses received were to the NEST scheme. The review examined such matters broadly positive across all excise trade sectors, including and has concluded, publishing its recommendations on those from the Association of Chartered Certified 30 September. Last week the Government confirmed Accountants, the Chartered Institute of Taxation—I that they would go ahead with the scheme, which I will come shortly to the points that it raised—the Institute again welcome. The clause ensures that the NEST scheme of Indirect Taxation, the National Casino Industry comes within the existing tax regime for registered Forum, the Scotch Whisky Association and the Tobacco pension schemes, and so we welcome it. Manufacturers Association. They all recognise the need The scheme will ensure that between 5 million and in future to tackle the illicit market more strongly than 9 million more people will be saving into a pension from we have been able to in the past. 2012 onwards. It will largely consist of part-time employees, The changes complete the work so far done on which is particularly welcome for women. It is also modernising compliance checks. They provide useful welcome for mobile, temporary and contract staff, and new powers that will ensure that HMRC can continue for the 70% of individuals from ethnic backgrounds to be effective in tackling the fraud that pervades the who are not currently saving into a pension. The scheme excise arena. On the additional powers and the published will bring many more people into pension schemes in guidance, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as future, ensure that their employers contribute to such this measure introduces amendments to existing legislation, schemes, and help people to save for their retirement in the current guidance will be updated to take account of a much more practical way. That is why the tax regime the changes. under the clause is welcome. As was promised in the response document issued in March 2010, HMRC will be exposing the guidance for comment, which is in line with the approach to previous 9.30 am changes to compliance-checking powers. We will ensure that the guidance is updated, which will avoid the risk The Minister will know that there is some controversy that the powers being changed by the clause might be concerning the provision. The Daily Mail,whichIwas misapplied. reading in the Tea Room this morning, says that some Question put and agreed to. small employers are concerned about the impact of the scheme. I hope that the Government will hold firm on Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. the matter and will not back up on the general scheme; I Schedule 13 agreed to. hope that the tax regime that the clause refers to will Clause 30 reflect the scheme that has been announced and that they will not backtrack on that for small employers. The PENSION SCHEME UNDER SECTION 67 OF PENSIONS issue is particularly important for those employed by ACT 2008 small firms, because they have just as much right to Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the ensure that they have pension entitlement as those who Bill. are employed by the state, or by multinational companies. Mr Hanson: Again, clause 30 is welcomed by the The scheme has been introduced, but I am concerned Opposition, because it ensures that the National about some small but significant changes that the Employment Savings Trust will come within the existing Government have made as part of the review. The 141 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Finance (No. 2) Bill 142 changes relate to the taxation regime in the clause to Part-time women workers and people on low incomes date and are still important matters that need to be might not know about such matters or have access to considered. the available information, and their employers might Hon. Members will know that the previous Labour not tell them. The scheme might not be widely taken up. Government proposed that the threshold for enrolment The taxation regime might not deal with such matters in into the scheme would be in the region of £5,035 per the same way that it would have if changes had been employee income per year. The review of the scheme made appropriately in the NEST scheme, as originally has increased that by some £2,000—to £7,475 before envisaged by the previous Labour Government. individuals will be automatically enrolled into the pension I wanted to put those important issues on the record. scheme. My colleague Brendan Barber, the general secretary I have two points to make. We recognise and welcome of the Trades Union Congress, has raised two points the clause. It establishes, under section 67 of the Pensions about that, which reflect on the taxation regime under Act 2008, that the scheme proposed will be subject to the clause and also concern the wider scheme. I would the provisions of the Bill. We have no problem with that welcome the Minister’s comments on that. and will support the clause, but it is incumbent on the Brendan Barber is concerned that the two issues Minister at least to liaise with her colleague, the pensions relating to that increase will have a detrimental effect, Minister, to reflect the Opposition’s concerns that the particularly on part-time women workers and those on revised scheme will disadvantage lower-paid, predominantly low incomes. In relation to the clause, the hon. Member female part-time workers, who would have benefited for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), the pensions under the Labour Government’s original proposals. Minister, has proposed that there will be a higher salary I hope that the Minister will also use this opportunity level of £7,475 before automatic enrolment into pensions, to support her colleague the pensions Minister in giving rather than the previous Government’s proposal of an indication, to the small firms generating a Daily £5,035. Also, there will be a three-month waiting period Mail campaign against the NEST scheme, that she fully before auto-enrolment takes place for those on that supports his proposals, as I know she does, and that she higher salary. Whatever we say about the scheme and believes that small firms should not be exempt from the however much I welcome it, there is a big difference scheme and that those who work for small firms have between having to earn just over £5,000 a year before just as much right to a pension as those who work for being auto-enrolled and having to earn £7,475 a year the state, mid-sized firms, larger firms or multinationals. before that happens. I would welcome such a commitment on paper today, Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): Some people for those outside to read—not least the authors of the feel that we should not be a nanny state, but does my Daily Mail article. It would give an assurance that the right hon. Friend agree that it is important that people tax regime will reflect the need for small employers to have the opportunity to be pensioned? Perhaps he play their part. Will she also explain why she is short- remembers, as I do, when the state earnings-related changing part-time women workers and others who pension scheme was abolished, and people had more would have benefited from the scheme had the Labour freedom—I certainly did—concerning their pensions. I Government been re-elected? had a secretary who was fairly typical in saying that she wanted to come out of it. Twenty-plus years on, such Justine Greening: As we have heard, clause 30 provides people would be much better provided for. that the National Employment Savings Trust—NEST, as the right hon. Member for Delyn called it—is to be Mr Hanson: My hon. Friend makes an important regarded as an occupational pension scheme for tax point. I emphasise that under the scheme’s taxation purposes. That, in turn, will allow NEST to be registered regime, individuals are on higher incomes, of £7,475, for tax purposes, another requirement of the Pensions before being automatically enrolled, rather than on the Act 2008. Without the clause, it would not be possible previous Government’s proposal of £5,000. That means for NEST to start enrolling members in April 2011, as that there are people earning between £5,000 and £7,000 we all want. who would have been enrolled in the scheme automatically, but now will not be. As the right hon. Gentleman explained, the background to the clause is that the Pensions Act 2008 required the Those people are likely to be part-time women workers Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to establish a or people on low incomes who might not know their pensions scheme that could be registered for tax purposes. rights at work or be trade union members. If, as the NEST has been set up to meet that requirement. It was front page of today’s Daily Mail shows, small employers established on 5 July 2010 as part of the workplace do not generally support the scheme, they are not likely pensions reforms and has been designed specifically to to advise their employees who earn between £5,000 and meet the needs of low to medium earners. £7,000 that they can enrol themselves in the scheme rather than being enrolled automatically, because that Although the Pensions Act 2008 provides that NEST will cost the employers contributions towards the scheme. is an occupational pension scheme, without this clause There are significant changes. The Labour Government’s it would not qualify as one for tax purposes. As a result proposal would have ensured that people on the lower of the clause, members of NEST will be able to benefit income, rather than the slightly higher income of £7,500, from the tax reliefs available to registered pension schemes were enrolled in the scheme automatically. Again, that on contributions and investment growth. is a small but significant change. It means that from The right hon. Gentleman made points about auto- 2012, people who earn less than £7,475 will have to enrolment and the threshold. When we looked at the enrol themselves in the scheme to get the benefits. That threshold, it made sense to align it with the level at means that they will have to know about the scheme which the employees start to pay tax, because that will and their rights, and know how to exercise those rights. simplify how the system works and remove bureaucracy 143 Public Bill Committee28 OCTOBER 2010 Finance (No. 2) Bill 144 for small employers. As he pointed out, other employees speaking, because that can ruin the flow of proceedings. will still be able to join the scheme and there will be a A couple of questions arose from what she said. She special communications strategy to make sure that mentioned that lifting the level at which people started employers know about the available pension choice. to be automatically enrolled in NEST was intended to align that level with the point at which people started to Mr Hanson: I am grateful that there will be a pay tax. She said that that would save on bureaucracy. communications strategy. Will the hon. Lady give some That is easy to say, but hard to measure. indication as to who is communicating with whom, and when and how? How will a woman who works part time in a small corner shop and earns less than £7,500 a year 9.45 am receive that information? Will it be via her employer? What work has been done to clarify how much that Justine Greening: The right hon. Gentleman would would save in bureaucracy? Will she say a little more be wiser to address those questions to the Department about why? What costs are we talking about and what for Work and Pensions, which is leading this policy scale of administration will be saved? If, on the grounds area. In respect of the clause, we need to have that of savings in bureaucracy, we are depriving core groups aspect within the Bill to enable NEST to be registered with very low incomes of automatic enrolment, it would for tax purposes, which was a requirement of the Pensions benefit all the Committee to understand that more. I Act 2008. would be grateful if the Minister said something about that. It concerns me that we might be acting too quickly Mr Hanson: I recognise that the responsibility for the and I would like to know more. Why will the process be NEST scheme lies with the pensions Minister, and I do simpler and more straightforward? not expect the Economic Secretary to know every detail My second point is about the communications strategy. of that particular scheme, because she is dealing with I have worked in communications and am aware that an the taxation element. achievable target is mapped out carefully and clearly We are being asked to ally those schemes with taxation before any communications plan goes ahead. Then its purposes accordingly. I am concerned about uptake and impact is measured. The history of pensions policy can the understanding of those who earn less than £7,500 be broadly characterised as people trying to communicate and who would have qualified for the scheme had the the long-term benefits of having a pension and the original proposal from the previous Government gone public, by and large, not always paying attention. I do ahead. It would be helpful if the Minister could, before not believe that the public are aware of any pensions Report, at least raise those concerns with the pensions communications strategy that has been as successful as Minister on behalf of the Committee, so that we can we hope this one will be. have a letter, from either her or him, that indicates how The Minister has just said that the issue is the those matters will work out, particularly in respect of a responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions communications strategy. but, again, it would benefit the Committee greatly if we Justine Greening: I am absolutely sure that my colleague heard a little more about the sort of targets that the the pensions Minister will come forward with more communications strategy is expected to play to. In my details about how the precise communications strategy experience, that is the sort of thing that should be will work. The decisions that we have made about the planned out very early on; we would have a sense of the threshold are sensible; even the right hon. Gentleman’s scale of behavioural change that the Government are party leader discussed the need to support small businesses trying to achieve. I would be grateful if the Minister earlier this week. As a Government, we are absolutely made some remarks about both those points. committed to doing that, which is why, rather than going ahead with an increase in the rate of small companies corporation tax, we chose to bring forward Justine Greening: To go back to my earlier comments, reductions and why, rather than going ahead with rises small employers in particular will have fewer ongoing in employers’ national insurance, we also brought forward admin costs in terms of setting up these schemes during reductions. the first year of establishment and, of course, in terms of the ongoing administration involved in running the In many regions of our country, those setting up new schemes once they are in place. The cost savings to companies, which have the fewest employees at the employees will probably be around £10 million in reductions start, will be getting additional national insurance holidays in first-year administration and £6 million on an ongoing for extra employees whom they support. We are committed basis in reduced administration. That shows that we are to ensuring that small companies will be able to play talking about real money. their role in boosting economic growth and employment in our country. Clause 30 means that there is a far better If those who run small companies were here representing chance that employees in these new companies will get themselves directly, they would probably say that the the benefit of an occupational pension scheme. time they spend on bureaucracy literally costs money; it I hope that we all welcome this clause. I have no is time that they could have been spending on the phone doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to to suppliers and new customers. Unnecessary bureaucracy pursue his questions with my colleagues at the Department has very direct consequences, perhaps for smaller companies for Work and Pensions. more than larger companies. We have sought to strike the right balance in the proposals, and I think that we Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): It is a pleasure have achieved that. to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. The DWP has developed a strategy, and has in its I want to ask a few questions for clarification and to sights small employers and their employees. They are make a few remarks; I hope that the Minister will be the main target of the measure. I assure the hon. Lady helpful. I did not want to intervene while she was that a communications strategy has been worked on. 145 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Finance (No. 2) Bill 146

[Justine Greening] trusts between now and the possible date of Royal Assent. If there are any such trusts, or plans to create Given her experience, I have no doubt that if she gets in them, that could create an anomaly in the treatment of touch with the DWP and feeds in her thoughts in a the two sets of trusts that would be dealing with the more detailed manner, Ministers will be interested to same issue: individuals who have asbestosis or who are hear from her. dealing with asbestos-related disabilities, injuries and Question put and agreed to. illnesses. Such an anomaly would make the legislation unfair. Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Obviously, people establishing trusts after Royal Assent Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill. will understand what will happen at that time. At the moment, however, we have a possible anomaly in that a Schedule 14 trust could be established before Royal Assent—next week, the week after or in December—but the conditions applying to it would not be the same as those that ASBESTOS COMPENSATION SETTLEMENTS would apply to trusts established on or before 23 March. Will the Minister indicate whether he is aware of any Mr Hanson: I beg to move amendment 15, in page 106, trusts established between 23 March and now that line 29, leave out ‘24 March 2010’ and insert could be disadvantaged because they are not covered by ‘the date of Royal Assent to the Finance (No. 3) Act 2010’. the clause? Secondly, is he aware of any trusts that might be established before the likely date of Royal The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss Assent? Finally, does he have a view on the tabling of an the following: Opposition amendment—or, if such an amendment Amendment 13, in page 107, line 16, leave out ‘24 would, as usual, be technically deficient, a Government March 2010’ and insert amendment—on Report to reflect my desire to ensure that no trusts are disadvantaged by the fact that the ‘the date of Royal Assent to the Finance (No. 3) Act 2010’. date in the schedule was set before the election and this Amendment 16, in page 108, line 4, leave out ‘24 year’s Budget? March 2010’ and insert Perhaps I should have raised this point during our ‘the date of Royal Assent to the Finance (No. 3) Act 2010’. proceedings on clause 31, rather than schedule 14, but just for the sake of clarity, I would welcome it if the Mr Hanson: We did not comment on clause 31 because Minister would say a few words about what he deems to the Opposition support the intention behind it—indeed, be an asbestos-related condition. Paragraph 21 of the we support the intention behind schedule 14. explanatory notes to clause 31 states: Clause 31 and schedule 14 provide an exemption “Asbestos related condition is a condition that arises as a result from inheritance tax, capital gains tax and income tax of contact directly or indirectly with asbestos. It is not defined for trustees of trusts dealing with asbestos-related further in these provisions, but includes conditions that are recognised by the courts as arising as a result of contact with asbestos, such conditions. The trusts that will benefit are those established as asbestosis.” on or before 23 March 2010 as part of an arrangement I am concerned that the note gives one example—“such made by a company with its creditors specifically to pay as asbestosis”—but does not clarify what other conditions compensation to, or in respect of, individuals with could be included for a trust established to deal with asbestos-related conditions. potential issues of ill health. The provisions are extremely welcome. They will benefit trusts established to pay compensation to individuals Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op): First, I apologise with debilitating conditions that are related to their for my lateness this morning, which was down to a diary exposure to asbestos, by and large in the workplace. clash. My right hon. Friend talks about conditions that Although the tax relief on inheritance tax, capital gains cause asbestosis. He will be aware of an ongoing campaign tax and income tax is welcome, hon. Members will see to compensate those victims who have pleural plaques that the date determining receipt of the benefit of tax and scarring of the lungs. Does he think that the relief in the schedule is 23 March. That was set out by scheme should also include such people? my colleagues in the previous Government in this year’s Budget on 24 March. Mr Hanson: I raised the issue because I know that my What has happened in relation to the period between hon. Friend takes an interest in these matters, given the 23 March and the Bill’s receiving Royal Assent, which nature of his constituency. It is for the Minister to may come at any time between now and the end of expand on what paragraph 21 of the explanatory notes December or early January? I would not wish to create means in practice. It states: an anomaly whereby trusts established after 23 March “Asbestos related condition is a condition that arises as a result and before Royal Assent would not be eligible for the of contact directly or indirectly with asbestos.” exemptions from inheritance tax, capital gains tax and That is fine; I accept that as a reasonable definition. The income tax because, although the Bill had received condition is not defined further in the Bill, but the notes Royal Assent, they had been established after 23 March. say that it I confess that I am not aware of any such trusts, but I “includes conditions that are recognised by the courts…such as tabling the amendment because it would allow the asbestosis.” Treasury’s great resources to be used to determine whether That is my concern. If the background note did not any trusts had been established between 23 March and state, “such as asbestosis”, I might accept the wide today—28 October—and, indeed, so that we could find definition. The moment “such as asbestosis” is included, out whether officials are aware of plans to establish however, one must ask, if it is not a condition “such as 147 Public Bill Committee28 OCTOBER 2010 Finance (No. 2) Bill 148 asbestosis”, what is it? There could be a future debate trusts in similar circumstances that were set up after about the relationship between the definition of asbestos- that date. However, to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s related conditions and the establishment of the trusts question directly, I should stress that we have not received prior to 23 March or, as under my amendment, after any such representations. We do not know of any trusts 23 March. I would welcome the Minister’s consideration in similar circumstances to those set out in the schedule of that date and a short comment about the background that have been established after 24 March 2010, and we note and definition. are not aware of any plans for such trusts to be established. It is also worth pointing out that a specific exemption, Mr Gauke: It might be helpful for me to say a word or as we have with the clause and the schedule, is not likely two about the background to clause 31 and schedule 14. to be necessary in most cases for most trusts in these As we have heard, the schedule concerns the taxation of areas. Generally, when trusts of this nature are set up, trusts set up in certain circumstances to compensate exemptions are already available. victims of asbestos. The inhalation of asbestos fibres Consequently, although I understand the intention can cause a number of diseases of the lungs, and behind the amendment, and while I think that the right prolonged exposure to asbestos exacerbates the risk of hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to ask his questions, contracting such a disease. it is not necessary that we amend the Bill as he proposes It has come to the Government’s attention that trusts because doing so might leave open an opportunity for set up in certain circumstances to compensate asbestos avoidance. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment. victims have been unable to access tax-efficient structures. Consequently, such trusts are facing tax liabilities that Mr Hanson: I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. will reduce the funds available to asbestos victims who As I indicated, the amendment was probing, first to are eligible for compensation. For example, if a trust is find out the definition of “asbestosis” and, secondly, to set up across more than one national legal jurisdiction, ensure that the Treasury had researched whether there which can happen where compensation arrangements were trusts that had been established after 23 March are complex, it can be difficult to rearrange trust structures. 2010 or that were due to be established. I was sure that Trusts might not be able to obtain charitable status if the Treasury could research that more easily than me, as they are set up specifically to compensate certain victims. my efforts were limited by having only one researcher. To help victims of asbestos, the changes set out in Given that the Minister has assured us that there are no schedule 14 will remove past and future inheritance tax, trusts in that position, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the income tax and capital gains tax liabilities from asbestos amendment. compensation settlements. The change was announced Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. by the previous Government, and we are happy to Schedule 14 agreed to. confirm it. Many years often elapse between exposure to asbestos and the emergence of symptoms of asbestos- related illnesses. We need to address that point. New Clause 1 The right hon. Member for Delyn asked about the sort of asbestos-related conditions to which the schedule will apply. As he mentioned, asbestosis is given as an DEFINITION OF ‘INCAPACITATED PERSON’ example, but that is not an exhaustive list. It could ‘(1) The Taxes Management Act 1970, section 118 is amended apply to other diseases and illnesses related to asbestos. as follows. It is likely to apply to trusts making payments to those (2) In subsection (1), the definition of “incapacitated person” with an asbestos-related condition, which might include is substituted as follows: those who were engaged in the manufacture, distribution, “‘incapacitated person’ means any person who, within sale and installation of asbestos products, or the mining the meaning of section 2(1) of the Mental of asbestos. The terminology has been kept deliberately Capacity Act 2005, lacks capacity in relation to wide to allow flexibility in such circumstances. The hon. tax or financial matters.”’.—(Chris Leslie.) Member for Islwyn asked whether the list would include Brought up, and read the First time. pleural plaques. It does; our intention was not to be prescriptive. Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. 10 am The new clause may appear to be a small technical I want to turn to the very fair point that the right change to alter the definition of “incapacitated person”. hon. Member for Delyn raised about his amendments, However, the more that I look at the current way in which would change the latest date by which a trust which the legislation is written, the more it occurs to me would have to have been established to benefit from tax we are proposing quite a significant and symbolic change. relief under the schedule. He proposes that the date I should not claim total credit for the new clause. I should be changed from 24 March 2010 to the day of want to thank the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s low the Bill’s Royal Assent. incomes tax reform group for highlighting the issue of The date of 24 March 2010 was the date of the first the definition of an “incapacitated person”. Digging Budget this year, when the measure was first proposed, back, it appears that this issue has been raised from and it was chosen as the cut-off date by the previous time to time during the consideration of Finance Bills Government. It is my understanding that that was to over several years. On this occasion, however, pretty eliminate any risk of avoidance—however small—due much most of the arguments against making the change to new trusts being set up to exploit the rules. Of course, proposed in the new clause have been well and truly the Government would consider representations from exhausted. 149 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Finance (No. 2) Bill 150

[Chris Leslie] Mr Gauke: As we have heard, new clause 1 seeks to change the definition in the Taxes Management Act For the benefit of the Committee, especially those 1970 of an “incapacitated person”, not substantially, who have not been members of Finance Bill Committees but in a way that would ensure that the Act better before, section 118 of the Taxes Management Act 1970, reflected the modern understanding of an incapacitated which is still extant, defines incapacitated persons as person. “any infant, person of unsound mind, lunatic, idiot or insane A definition is required to ensure that the obligations person”. of the 1970 Act properly fall on those acting for children Clearly, those are almost laughable definitions. In fact, or those with mental health problems. The existing they are highly insulting and derogatory to the individuals definition can be traced back to at least 1880, and I to whom they refer, and in many ways inaccurate and entirely agree that the wording—it includes words such outdated. Those forms of description were essentially as “lunatic” and “idiot”—appears more appropriate to incorporated into the 1970 Act from the 19th century the Victorian age than to today. lunacy Acts of days gone by. However, for a variety of I know that a change has been requested for some reasons the provisions have never been updated or time by the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group. It pressed modernised. On the basis that this is not a party political the previous Government on the matter from 2003, and matter but a drafting issue, we thought it was important I believe that it was promised a consultation on the to be constructive and to bring this new clause before matter in 2005, but we still have the old definitions. I the Committee in the hope that the Government would have a great deal of time for the group; it has been most accept it. helpful to me, both in opposition and in government, and I recognise the valuable role that it plays. Section 72 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 provides that an incapacitated person’s tax liabilities should apply Before addressing some of the technical points in the to the trustees, guardians, tutors, curators or committees new clause, I would like to reassure Opposition Members of that incapacitated person as if he were a non- that I broadly welcome the fact that the subject has incapacitated person. We are in an era of tax law been raised. It is a change that I will ask my officials to rewrites, and tax law rewrite Bills come along every consider. However, I do not think that the new clause decade or so, but it is necessary to make this modest would achieve its intention, or that it is an appropriate change now. way to make that change. It seeks to link the definition of an incapacitated person from the Taxes Management This simple and discrete new clause would replace Act 1970 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The initial and modernise the definition so that it aligned with the amendment referred to section 1 of that Act, but I more appropriate meaning set out in the Mental Capacity believe that it has been revised to refer to section 2, as Act 2005, which defines incapacitated persons in a far that provides a specific definition. However, referring to better and more sensitive way. The 2005 Act provides section 2 would mean omitting children, and I am sure that someone lacks capacity in relation to a matter if at that Opposition Members do not intend to restrict the the material time they are unable to make a decision for definition. themselves Although the new clause could be changed in an “because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the function of, attempt to address that definitional point better, I believe the mind or brain”. that there is a better way to do what is intended. As That is a much better definition, and we hope that it will Members will be aware, the Treasury launched at the also encompass the arrangements on trusteeship that time of the June Budget a new approach to tax policy have accrued since 1970. For instance, it would cover making. We wish to avoid the previous experience of donees, the power of attorney and Department for making reactive and piecemeal policy announcements Work and Pensions appointees. that are unexpected and insufficiently thought through. Instead, we believe that appropriate consideration should The arguments against our approach have fallen away be given to changes and that opportunities should be over the years. The all-party group on mental health provided for those affected to comment and to have highlighted the fact that UK law still includes this certainty about our decisions. Any change to the measures anachronism of using offensive and potentially that we are discussing should go through that process, discriminatory language to describe people with mental not least to prevent any group of people from being health problems. In 2003, the low incomes tax reform inadvertently moved in or out of any new definition. group called for the provision to be updated. Such action was pressed for in previous Finance Bills, including I am sure that Committee members appreciate that it that of 2006. Indeed, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would be inappropriate for me to give a definitive fully accepted the case for change four years ago. However, timetable at this stage. None the less, I can assure the the planned rewrite of the 1970 Act fell by the wayside Committee that we are keen to address the issue. Any for various unrelated reasons, so the provision remains changes will be undertaken in the open and transparent on the statute book. way that we have set out. I appreciate the hon. Member for Nottingham East raising that important point and We believe that this is a good opportunity to update agree entirely with the sentiments behind the new clause, the provision. The new clause would make a minor but I ask him, for the reasons I have outlined, not to change. It is discrete and free-standing, and it has no press it to a Division. I am sure that he will engage with Revenue implications. As I said, we have been promised us on how to make the change that is behind the new rewrites by various Governments in times gone by, but clause. they have not been delivered. There is clear evidence that people feel insulted or hurt by these definitional Chris Leslie: I am grateful to the Minister for his vestiges of a bygone age, and I hope that the Minister comments, although I take issue with them slightly. I do will accept the new clause. not want to make a party political issue of the matter, 151 Public Bill Committee28 OCTOBER 2010 Finance (No. 2) Bill 152 because clearly the previous Administration did not and offensive. We want to solve the problem, but in make that change; however, the Minister and his advisers such a way that there are no inadvertent, unexpected still appear to be a little bit in that groove. I have a consequences, which requires a more deliberative approach. couple of points to make. I do not think that we are in a I am sorry, but much as I respect the intentions position to talk about “reactive and piecemeal” changes, behind the new clause, that is why I cannot accept it. I given the number of years we have been debating this hope that we do not divide on it, because hon. Members matter, and having pored over it from time to time. I on both sides of the Committee want to work constructively was interested to hear the technical point about whether to address the issue. It would be a pity if the issue the reference in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 does not proved to be a dividing line between the parties when we include children; perhaps I should have spoken with the recognise that the hon. Member for Nottingham East Minister before tabling the new clause to ensure that we has raised a very fair point, and we want to find the covered those points. right way of addressing it. Having been a Minister, I know that it is tempting for both officials and Ministers to get into a habit of Chris Leslie: I hear what the Minister says and I resisting all amendment at all costs, no matter what they accept his honourable intentions in respect of the change. are. Having a clean Bill go through Committee might be I know that it would be very difficult to make a decision regarded as a feather in the cap. However, I think that it on a potential Government new clause by as early as would reflect well on the Department in general, and on next week, perhaps, or whenever we come to the final the Minister in particular, if we were able to amend the stages of the Bill on the Floor of the House, but the law by the time the Bill is enacted, particularly as we are argument about further consultation and more rounds talking about one, non-contentious issue. If he gives me of deliberation has pretty much run its course by now, an assurance that, on Report—we have plenty of days given the number of years we have pored over the issue. before then in which to look at changing the provision in respect of children—he will bring forward a new For that reason, I will not withdraw the new clause clause on the subject, we will be more than happy to but will press it to a Division, in the hope that when we praise him and accept that arrangement. That would be return on Report, either I will table a technically correct a good way of doing it. version of the new clause or the Minister, on reflection, will table that new clause himself. That is still my hope. If the Minister makes such a commitment today, On the Floor of the House, when there are far more which is within his power—that privilege is what being people watching, it would be far more embarrassing to a Minister, albeit a junior one, can be about, and I am have Divisions, but for now, I really feel that we need to sure that the Chancellor is more than happy to concede take the issue to the next stage, because we have been, to on the matter—we can all agree on the issue and go use a famous phrase, faffing around on it for too many away happy. Otherwise, we will try to bring the matter years. back on Report. I do not think that it would help Question put, anyone if we were to divide on the new clause today, so I That the clause be read a Second time. hope that we can talk about the issue outside Committee The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9. and bring forward an amendment on Report, perhaps Division No. 2] in his name. AYES 10.15 am Brown, Lyn Leslie, Chris Evans, Chris Mr Gauke: Let me assure the Committee that I would McCarthy, Kerry have no reluctance in accepting the new clause if we Gilmore, Sheila thought that it was technically right, and if there had Hanson, rh Mr David McGovern, Alison been sufficient consultation and the opportunity to examine that technical area. The issue was first raised in NOES 2003 by the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, and a Burt, Lorely Mordaunt, Penny promise was made in 2005 to address it. It is very Elphicke, Charlie Sharma, Alok important, when we examine tax law, that we ensure Gauke, Mr David that we get it right. Too often, under Governments of Goodwill, Mr Robert Shelbrooke, Alec both colours, we find, in Finance Bill deliberations, that Harrington, Richard Williams, Stephen we are debating clauses that amend measures that were passed only the previous year, or two years ago, because Question accordingly negatived. something has come to light. That is why it is very Clauses 32 and 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill. important that we have a consultative and deliberative process in making tax law. I accept that the issue is not Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, entirely new, but it is important that officials and outside as amended, to the House. bodies, as well as the LITRG, can examine the matter. I am not able to give the assurance that the hon. Mr Gauke: Before we reach the conclusion of our Member for Nottingham East, quite reasonably, asked detailed consideration of the third Finance Bill of 2010, for—that we will come back by Report with a solution— I would like to put on the record my thanks to those because I cannot confidently state that we will be in a who have participated in and assisted with our deliberations. position to do so. In any event, we believe in consulting As always, the Hansard Reporters, Doorkeepers and more fully, as we have done with the Bill across the police officers have provided essential help in ensuring board. However, he raises an important point, and I can the smooth running of the Committee, for which I assure him that the Government are determined to thank them. I also apologise to the Hansard Reporters address it. The terminology in the current law is archaic for troubling them with the name of the Dutch VAT. As 153 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Finance (No. 2) Bill 154

[Mr Gauke] some hobbit sidesteps into Middle-earth, which might now be further from us than my hon. Friend the Member they say in the Netherlands, “Het spijt me.” It is not the for Watford would wish. first time that we have heard double Dutch in a Finance However, it would be wrong to think that we have not Bill debate. considered important and difficult issues, from the tax I thank all the officials from Her Majesty’s Revenue treatment of carers in clauses 1 and 2 to the impact of and Customs, the Treasury and other Departments, asbestos exposure in clause 31 and the definition of whose help has been invaluable. They have repeatedly incapacity in new clause 1. Hon. Members approached inspired me when I have been clutching for the right those issues in a constructive and non-partisan way, words. I am particularly grateful to parliamentary counsel, showing the value of these considerations. whose hard work and dedication provided the means A number of new Members are now dealing with for the Government to present our views in the Bill, as Finance Bill matters. I congratulate the shadow Front-Bench well as the means to help those who will benefit from it. Members, who have taken a robust and considered As the Committee will be aware, this is the first time approach on their first outing on the shadow Front that we have consulted on all a Finance Bill’s clauses in Bench in a Finance Bill Committee. I thank them and draft. It is part of our new approach to tax policy other Opposition Members for their dedication and making. I thank all the representative bodies and other constructive opposition. Despite a shaky start, the hon. interested parties who came forward with suggestions Member for West Ham and my hon. Friend the Member for improving the legislation. They have demonstrated for Scarborough and Whitby have helped ensure that that the new approach makes for better legislation, and the Committee ran smoothly alongside other business I look forward to their participation in future Bills in the House, for which I thank them. consulted on in the same way. As for my hon. Friends, I see exactly how the coalition Although this is a technical Bill covering a range of Government can benefit from both parties being involved. minor measures, the Committee has managed, through I wish my hon. Friends the Members for Elmet and determined probing, to draw some surprising themes Rothwell, and for Dover, well in kicking their smoking from the Bill. We have travelled far and wide in our habits with the assistance of the hon. Member for deliberations. Although our departure was slightly delayed, Bristol East. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members we soon had the wind in our sails. We have gone to the for Bristol West, for Solihull, and for Reading West, and cold waters of the North sea in considering both the all my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the mackerel wars and the possible red herrings involved in Member for Putney, for their support. Finally, I thank seafarers’ earnings deductions in clause 4. I thought you for your help, Mr Caton, and I also thank Mr Chope that we risked descending into fish-based puns— and the Clerk, Mr Patrick. I look forward to further debates on Report. Chris Leslie: Not in this plaice. Mr Hanson: In the interests of not bringing us back this afternoon, I agree and wish everybody on the Mr Gauke: Yes, this is not the plaice. I know that Committee well. some hon. Members put their heart and sole into discussing Question put and agreed to. the issue, maybe with the advice of John Whiting. We Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported. considered the aircraft affected by clause 21, the plans for a hydrogen-powered ferry in Bristol harbour, and 10.24 am the cross-country travels of the post bus. We even made Committee rose.