GENERAL PROVISION CHARGING BENEFITS (Hansard, 15 July 1976)

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move Amendment No. 236, in page 35, line 13, leave out and other benefits and facilities of whatsoever nature". The amendment is to the clause that introduces new provisions for charging benefits. They are more severe provisions than we had before. Subsection (2) defines what is meant by "benefits" in this way: The benefits to which this section applies are living or other accommodation, entertainment, domestic or other services". Then follow the words and other benefits and facilities of whatsoever nature". I am aware that those words, which the amendment seeks to leave out, have been used in statutes for about a quarter of a century, but that does not make them easier to understand. The opportunity could have been taken in the Bill to make those words clearer. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell the House what benefits will be included in the wide phrase other benefits and facilities of whatsoever nature which would not be included in those described more specifically in the previous line of the Bill.
I assume that only benefits ejusdem generis can be included in those general words. Although they are already used in statute, those general words have not been easy to interpret, and I had hoped that in this comprehensive clause about charging benefits we would have a better definition of exactly what is intended to be included in them in future.

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon)
The right hon. Gentleman rightly points out that the words have been enshrined in statute since the 1948 legislation on benefits. 1016 The amendment seeks to limit the definition of taxable benefits, other than those specified in Clauses 59 to 63, to the three categories he mentioned—living accommodation, entertainment and domestic or other services.
It seems that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking clarification more than anything else. If the amendment were passed a large part of the legislation that has existed since 1948 would be rendered unworkable. For example, it would remove from the benefits to be chargeable the use of yachts and aeroplanes belonging to the employer, the gift of assets or the sale at less than market value of such items as clothes, wines and groceries, and payment by the employer direct of liabilities incurred by the employee, free holidays, such as shooting or fishing holidays and such matters. The range of exemptions could be very large. It would make not only the legislation in prospect but even existing legislation unworkable.
It is not possible to categorise all the various kinds of benefit. That is why the words were used in the 1948 Act. They seem, at least in the limited way that that legislation provided, to have given the possibility of taxing the use of these benefits. It is only right that we should use those same useful words in the current legislation.

§ Mr. Graham Page
The hon. Gentleman says that they are useful words—useful to the Revenue in its being able to drag into the net of "benefits and facilities" new ones as they occur. That is why I had hoped that we could have a better definition, but at least the Financial Secretary has put on record what is intended to be included within the meaning of the words. Because it was only a probing amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.