HC Deb 12 June 1956 vol 554 cc439-41

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Houghton

I should like to ask the Financial Secretary a question or two. Do I understand that an aggrieved person will have the option of appealing either to the General Commissioners or to the Special Commissioners? I am referring to subsection (1), which provides that … any person aggrieved by any decision of the surveyor on any such claim may appeal within the prescribed time either to the General Commissioners or to the Special Commissioners … Is the option in the hands of the appellant in this matter?

I have a question also about the penalty mentioned in the very last line of the Clause. Subsection (4) says that if any person, for the purpose of obtaining relief knowingly makes a false statement or false representation, he shall be liable to a penalty of £500. Section 505 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, deals with penalties for false statements made to obtain allowances. There is provision there for imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. Are these penalties mutually exclusive? Would the Financial Secretary add a word about the inclusion of this very substantial money penalty in this Clause? I think it is probable that it is the largest money penalty to be found in the Income Tax Acts, saving, of course, the omnibus penalty of three times the duty lost. I should like the Financial Secretary to give a word of explanation on these matters.

Mr. H. Brooke

This, of course, is a procedural Clause of a somewhat intricate nature. I think the hon. Member's question concerned the proviso to subsection (1). The position is that the aggrieved person will have a right of appeal either to the General Commissioners or to the Special Commissioners against the refusal of a claim. If it is a case of dispute about a split of a purchased annuity, then it will be an appeal to the Special Commissioners only. The reason for this distinction is that the second question might involve difficult actuarial calculations: and, also, the decision could well be one which would normally run for the whole currency of the annuity and not just the particular year of the appeal. That is why it is thought more appropriate for determination to be by a central tribunal rather than by local hearing.

So far as the penalty in subsection (4) is concerned, I do not know if the hon. Gentleman thought that this maximum was too heavy or not heavy enough. But he will appreciate that it is a penalty that may be imposed not only where a person has made a false claim for himself, but also where a person has been aiding and abetting a false claim to be made by somebody else. I will certainly examine what he has said and see if this needs further attention, but I was putting the matter before the Committee as a perfectly simple proviso that that would be the maximum penalty in the case of anyone who tried to cheat, or who helped another person to cheat, in respect of this part of the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison

I should like to ask the Financial Secretary if the hon. and learned Solicitor-General (Sir H. Hylton-Foster) is not going to say anything; because he could say, without doubt, whether these two penalties could be imposed on the same person; that is, under the 1952 Act, where there is imprisonment, and under this Bill, which provides for a fine of £500. Could those penalties be imposed for the same offence?

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.