§ Dr. MarekI beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 7, leave out 'one year' and insert 'six months'.
The ChairmanWith this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 13, at end insert 'and within three months of the claim being made'.
§ Dr. MarekThe two amendments are fairly sensibl—at least, amendment No. 11 is—[Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh, but the fact that I said that amendment No. 11 was sensible said nothing about amendment No. 8, which seeks to change the period during which a claim can be made from one year to six months. That seems sensible as one does not want legislation that could result in claims being left on the statute book for too long. I should have thought that legal advisers would draw the attention of prospective purchasers to the Bill and a claim would be made in a matter of days. I am prepared to be persuaded by the Financial Secretary that the period should be one year, but I think that six months would be better. That was why I did not give an unequivocal view on the amendment.
However, I am clear about amendment No. 11. It is possible that the commissioners will delay repaying amounts due and the amendment seeks to limit that delay to three months which I believe is sensible. I hope that the Financial Secretary will agree to the amendment.
§ Mr. MaudeOn the hon. Gentleman's first point about reducing the period for claiming a refund, there is no magic in one figure as opposed to another and not very much hangs on this one way or the other. We made a broad judgment on what is a sensible period to allow for claims to be made and decided on 12 months. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that in practice most claims will be made quickly—within a matter of days, not months—but there may be cases where, for one reason or another—because someone is ill or temporarily working overseas or even, perhaps, because of an oversight—the claim is not made quickly. As it does not much matter whether some claims are made later rather than earlier, we wanted to allow reasonable time to cover such cases.
146 It could be argued that the limit is on the generous side, but I do not see any particular advantage in reducing it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, while no great weight attaches to this matter either way, the time limit in the Bill is reasonable and defensible, so the amendment should be withdrawn.
Amendment No. 11 proposes that the Inland Revenue should be required to make reimbursement within three months of a claim being made. It involves an important matter of principle: in practice, the Revenue will make the reimbursement as quickly as possible once it has been established that a payment is properly due. I expect that that reimbursement will be made well within the three months after the claim is made.
The problem with the amendment is that payment by the Revenue will depend on the necessary conditions being satisfied. It is not clear what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting should happen in cases where the Revenue cannot be satisfied that those conditions have been met until more than three months after the claim has been made, for example, where information in support of the claim is slow in coming forward. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish the Revenue to be required to make a payment without being satisfied that it is properly due.
The fact that I resist the amendment does not mean that I would expect payments to take more than three months. However, the amendment would place the Revenue in a position that the Government could not defend. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
§ Dr. MarekI understand what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury means about amendment No. 8. That is a matter of judgment. I also understand what he says about amendment No. 11. However, it is an important part of a citizens charter that a citizen should have some right in that moneys that are due should be paid. While there may be some defects, the sense of the amendment is clear. If the claim has been made and the commissioners are satisfied, they should pay that money as quickly as possible. Three months is a generous period.
The Opposition feel strongly about that. The public and our citizens should have some right and the matter should not be left to the mercy of commissioners, the Government or anyone else. I would like to divide the House on amendment No. 11, but to withdraw amendment No. 8.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The ChairmanWith this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 10, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
'and (e) any conditions in paragraph (d) above shall be regulated by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament.'.No. 12, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
§ Dr. MarekThe amendments seek to define a little more tightly the conditions that may be applied by the 147 commissioners. They also give control to the House, in that any such conditions shall be subject to a negative resolution procedure in the House.
Amendment No. 12 replaces "may" with "shall" and amendment No. 9 seeks to delete paragraph (d). In other words, it would change the Bill so that commissioners may not impose other conditions.
I understand that none of the amendments is necessarily perfect. However, the Bill states:
such other conditions (if any) as the Commissioners may determine".That gives a lot of power to the commissioners, but no redress for the citizen or applicant who wants his or her money to be returned. The commissioners may decide on reasonable conditions and I am not against that. That would be right. However, they may sometimes decide on unreasonable conditions. If that is the case, the Bill should be tightened up and and I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will agree about that.
§ Mr. CryerI want to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). The Bill will pass to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue an ability to legislate.
It is true that that applies to a very narrow area in respect of instruments that were executed on or after 20 December 1991 and before 16 January 1992 and stamped before 16 January. However, there is also the application of restrospective legislation about which the House is very cautious. The Minister will claim that it is usual in taxation to apply retrospective powers. That may be true when concessions are made, but, as the Financial Secretary knows, when retrospective powers are applied for a tax that is being levied, we run into great trouble. In effect, people are asked to make payments for back taxation, which is deemed to be very unfair, and that is why the House generally looks rather cautiously at retrospective legislation.
As the commissioners' powers are not qualified, because the Bill allows
such other conditions (if any) as the Commissioners may determine are satisfiedamendment No. 10 allows for negative procedure instruments to be provided by the Government. That is a reasonable precaution. It is a narrow matter. It would not be the first time that the House has required delegated powers to be exercised by a Minister over a narrow range of subjects. The House should be extremely cautious in delegating powers to unelected people outside the House. It does that on a number of occasions, but the House is extremely sloppy and careless in its supervision of delegated legislation, anyhow. Sooner or later, an almighty error will cause pressure from outside the House to produce changes in the scrutiny of delegated legislation.It is about time that the House looked at this matter in more detail. When changes have been made in the system of delegated legislation, it has always been because serious errors had been made. The room for error is greater when powers are granted to bodies outside the House. Although it has many faults, the House has the ability to provide some scrutiny for even the most esoteric and labyrinthine legislation. The Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but clause 2(1)(d), which contains the power of the commissioners to provide conditions, could provide for 148 people to be ineligible for the stamp duty concessions which the Bill provides. If people who applied before 16 December 1992 were in breach of the conditions which the commissioners are given power to apply, they would lose the right to exemption of stamp duty.
The Financial Secretary may say that the commissioners may never apply any of those powers, because the Bill states, "If they wish to apply any of the conditions." However, those powers are given to the commissioners. Unless there is further primary legislation to take them back, they are being handed over unconditionally to the commissioners. Therefore, we should take a fair amount of care in doing that.
I shall be interested to hear the Financial Secretary's comments on how he expects that the commissioners will apply clause 2(1)(d), why it is inserted, why the commissioners have been given such discretion, and whether that discretion is necessary. The Financial Secretary must have some examples in mind. If those matters are genuinely trivial, the Committee might be satisfied, bearing in mind that the powers are unqualified. They simply have the right to create conditions, and that is less than satisfactory. Surely the Financial Secretary must have something in mind or that provision would not be in the Bill. I look forward to the Financial Secretary's comments, and I hope that he can satisfy me on the validity of that provision.
§ Mr. BeithThe hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has made an important point clearly and lucidly, and if this were not a temporary provisions Bill, we would be entitled to press it a great deal further. I was not happy to see in the Bill the words that he quoted, but in this case they relate to and will be in force for only a very short period and do not look likely to restrict the concession a great deal. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has given a timely warning.
A curious situation appears to have developed. I was trying to develop an index of official Opposition concern. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said that the Opposition were very concerned about amendment No. 11 and would therefore divide the House on it—I am inclined to support him on that point. However, if I was looking for a measure of official Opposition concern, I should think that the fact that the hon. Member for Bradford. South has spoken in the debate is possibly a measure of relatively greater Opposition concern than would have been the case if only the hon. Member for Wrexham had spoken. A debate in which not only the hon. Member for Bradford, South speaks but in which the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) delivers an impassioned speech must be an index of even greater Opposition concern. That combination of speakers arose against the whole principle of the Bill, but did not lead to a Division or to a vote against the principle of the Bill. A strange inverse principle of Opposition concern appears to be at work.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South raised a perfectly sound point and I hope that the Financial Secretary, and especially the parliamentary draftsmen, will take it seriously into account.
§ Mr. MaudeI have some sympathy with the points raised by the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). As the Committee and especially all those who are accustomed to 149 dealing with financial legislation know, there are tiers of legislation. Some things are rightly regarded as being of such importance and permanence that only primary legislation is satisfactory. For less important matters, secondary legislation that is subject either to positive or negative resolution is regarded as an adequate protection, and for things that are even lower down the scale of importance, arrangements such as this are regarded as satisfactory. The hon. Member for Bradford, South is entirely right to test and probe the provisions and to require Ministers to set out why they think that this approach is right here.
I am happy to tell the House that I shall set out only briefly a little about the way in which the reimbursement arrangements will work. People will be able to claim a reimbursement from the Revenue in the circumstances that we have set out if they would have paid less duty or none on the basis of the new £250,000 threshold. When they paid the duty, they will have been given a special receipt for it. With their claim for reimbursement, they will need to produce that receipt and the stamped document. But in some cases it may not be possible for the claimant to produce the stamped document because the appropriate registrar cannot release it. In those circumstances, the Stamp Office will advise what alternative evidence should be produced. In order to ensure that reimbursement is claimed only once on any particular document, the document may be stamped to show that the reimbursement has been claimed.
As all hon. Members who have spoken have acknowledged, in practice we expect the number of reimbursements to be small—low hundreds rather than thousands—because most people will have decided to wait for the new threshold to be given legal effect before presenting their documents to be stamped.
The clause permits the Inland Revenue to lay down conditions for reimbursement. It has been suggested it was unduly wide to allow the Revenue to determine what the conditions should be. But the reason for that is to allow flexibility to cater for particular circumstances. For example, an absolute requirement that the applicant should produce the original stamped document would cause problems in some cases, because the registrar might not be able to release the document to him. In those cases, the Revenue will need to ask for details of the document and may need to arrange directly with the registrar for the document to be stamped to show that the reimbursement has been made. In some cases other evidence may be required—for example, because the claim has been made by a different person from the one who is named on the receipt for the duty. There may well be good reasons for that. For example, the taxpayer may have died or may have changed his solicitor. It is sensible that the Revenue should be able to satisfy itself that the claim is well founded and ensure that double claims are not made for the same duty.
Several unusual circumstances may crop up in no more than one or two cases. It is unnecessary to create all the paraphernalia of secondary legislation so that particular conditions can apply to no more than a handful of cases. I have considered the matter carefully. I am confident that this is a proper occasion for the use of this type of power. It is important to ensure that double claims are not made for the same duty and that claims are well founded. Amendment No, 9 would prevent the Revenue from taking those precautions.
150 This is a sensible, pragmatic and flexible arrangement. I can undertake that the Revenue will operate it in a reasonable and sensible way. In those circumstances, I hope that the Committee is satisfied with my explanation and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
§ Mr. CryerMadam Deputy Chairman—Chairwoman—Chairperson. [Laughter.] I am covering all eventualities, Miss Boothroyd. After all that difficulty with descriptions, I should like to concentrate on what the Minister has said about the power granted in clause 2(1)(d). The power is drafted too widely. Yet it covers a narrow area. It is to require alternative evidence where applicants have to provide proof of payment when they pay the stamp duty and then seek a reimbursement. That is a perfectly legitimate process within the framework of the legislation.
I suspect that the reason why the power is rather widely drafted is that people who draft legislation have got into the habit of writing in a belt-and-braces clause so that they have the necessary powers to do anything at all about a difficult situation that crops up. I do not believe that that is right. Where such powers are given, they should be carefully defined. The Minister says that he wants some flexibility to deal with a handful of cases. All right, that can be incorporated into the precise area with which the Minister proposes that the Bill should deal. That would be preferable to the bland assertion that any conditions whatever can be produced.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister is throwing money at the problem?
§ Mr. CryerI would not agree that he is throwing money at it, but he could be giving power to the commissioners to produce conditions that make reimbursement difficult. Clearly, that will not be the case if everyone has good will, but occasionally good will is absent. In those circumstances, the commissioners may produce conditions which deny someone a perfectly proper reimbursement. That would be unjust. Any remedy would be difficult to obtain.
This is primary legislation on a fairly narrow matter. That narrowness should be indicated in the Bill, if necessary by an additional few words or a schedule defining what the commissioners can do. That would be entirely preferable. The clause is yet another example of the drafting of broad clauses because the Government want to hand over administrative details. Successive Governments have done it. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has tabled a perfectly sensible amendment on a narrow point to require that the instruments come before the House. If the conditions were unfair, we would have the opportunity to pray against the instrument and have a debate on it—should we happen to get any time, which is another question entirely. We could then remedy any faults.
In spite of the Minister's explanation, I still find the clause unsatisfactory. Undoubtedly, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham will also have some comments to make on it.
§ Dr. MarekAmong Opposition Members there is concern about clause 2. I agree with the remarks of both my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed 151 (Mr. Beith) about the amendments. However, these are temporary provisions, and I am mindful of the Financial Secretary's assurance that the commissioners will behave reasonably. I hope that they will.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Amendment proposed: No. 11, in page 2, line 13, at end insert
'and within three months of the claim being made'.—[Dr. Marek.]
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 115.
| Division No. 44] | [12.50 |
| AYES | |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) |
| Beith, A. J. | McMaster, Gordon |
| Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Cryer, Bob | Marek, Dr John |
| Dalyell, Tarn | Meale, Alan |
| Dixon, Don | Skinner, Dennis |
| Foster, Derek | Wareing, Robert N. |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Wray, Jimmy |
| Graham, Thomas | |
| Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Hood, Jimmy | Mr. Frank Haynes and |
| Jones, leuan (Ynys M6n) | Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie. |
| Lewis, Terry |
| NOES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Allason, Rupert | Dover, Den |
| Amess, David | Durant. Sir Anthony |
| Arbuthnot, James | Fallon, Michael |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Fenner, Dame Peggy |
| Ashby, David | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Freeman, Roger |
| Baldry, Tony | French, Douglas |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair |
| Boswell, Tim | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Bottomley, Peter | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n) | Hague, William |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Bowis, John | Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') |
| Bright, Graham | Harris, David |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Hawkins, Christopher |
| Burns, Simon | Hayward, Robert |
| Butler, Chris | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Carrington, Matthew | Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Hunter, Andrew |
| Chope, Christopher | Irvine, Michael |
| Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth) | Jack, Michael |
| Clark, Rt Hon Sir William | Janman, Tim |
| Colvin, Michael | Jessel, Toby |
| Conway, Derek | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Jones, Robert B (Herts W) |
| Cope, Rt Hon Sir John | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Couchman, James | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Knight, Greg (Derby North) |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Day, Stephen | Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Mills, lain | Speller, Tony |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) |
| Moate, Roger | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Monro, Sir Hector | Steen, Anthony |
| Morrison, Sir Charles | Stevens, Lewis |
| Moss, Malcolm | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Moynihan, Hon Colin | Summerson, Hugo |
| Neubert, Sir Michael | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Thompson, Sir 0. (Calder Valley) |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | |
| Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Norris, Steve | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley | Viggers, Peter |
| Paice, James | Waller, Gary |
| Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Wheeler, Sir John |
| Portillo, Michael | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy | Wilkinson, John |
| Riddick, Graham | Wood, Timothy |
| Rowe, Andrew | Yeo, Tim |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Shelton, Sir William | |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Skeet, Sir Trevor | Mr. David Lightbown and |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Mr. John M. Taylor. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Dr. MarekI beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
I have tabled the amendment because I am genuinely perplexed. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will explain these matters in simple and lucid terms so that we can all understand them.
§ Mr. MaudeI cannot guarantee that I can meet the concluding part of the request of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), but I shall endeavour to fulfil the first part.
The amendment would remove subsection (4), which provides for a reimbursement made under the clause to be treated as a repayment for technical purposes under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866. Strictly this is because the reimbursements made under the clause will not be repayments of stamp duty but equivalent payments. This will not affect the amount that taxpayers receive, only the form of the payments. It is to avoid any possible risk that the legal status of a document that has already been stamped may be prejudiced if stamp duty already paid had to be refunded.
Section 10 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act permits the Inland Revenue to deduct tax repayments from the gross revenue that it collects before paying it into the Consolidated Fund. Subsection (4) of the clause is necessary because the reimbursements will technically not be repayments of duty but tantamount to tax repayments. It is sensible, therefore, to deal with them in the same way as tax repayments. There is no question of the Inland Revenue making a payment in a case where no tax has been paid. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Bill reported, without amendment.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed.