BUSINESS PROPERTY RELIEF (Hansard, 28 March 1996)

§ Mr. Mike O'Brien

I picked up the Government's press release on this matter. Paragraph 4 states: Due to a technical defect, the current proposals in the Bill would have had the effect of withdrawing the replacement facility now available to controlling holdings. This was not the intention. Under the amendments both the existing facilities will be made available to all unquoted holdings regardless of their size. I do not want to be churlish, but our general complaint throughout proceedings on the Bill has concerned the facts that the Government have had to submit amendments at the last moment, and that there have been problems to do with technical drafting, with lack of consultation, and with various failures on the part of the Government's system to get the Bill right.

There seems to be too much rush in the Government's approach. This will probably be my last opportunity to raise that concern, but it is valid, and the Government must take account of it. If they have to introduce another Finance Bill, I hope that they will acknowledge the anxieties that we have expressed throughout consideration of the Bill—through loan relationships, self-assessment and various aspects of inheritance tax.

I accept that technical defects will always come to light once a Bill has been published. We would hope that they would be as few as possible. In this case, there have been far too many mistakes. It is clear that the Government are not properly using the time running up to the Budget to work out precisely what they are doing. It is incumbent on Ministers to assure the House, even though they may not accept all our criticisms, that they understand our concern when Bills are brought before the House and are then subjected to last-minute, multiple amendments.

The omission under consideration, corrected by an amendment designed to reinstate a relief that was inadvertently omitted from clause 174, is a good case in point. I hope that the Minister will assure us that what I have said will be remembered. I offer those remarks in a helpful spirit, not to make a party political point. I hope that the Minister will give us the assurance that things will be done a bit better next time.

§ Mr. Jack

To err occasionally is a human failing, but Report stage offers us the opportunity to put human failings right. We have duly taken advantage of that on this occasion. I am always the first to apologise if anyone has made a mistake, because I make mistakes and I realise that I am a human being with that frailty.

The hon. Gentleman misunderstood the purpose of the amendment. It is not a question of having made a mistake; it is just that, when drafting the clause, we based the whole test of what is a qualifying asset for the business property relief on one of two two-year tests. Having 1197 realised that we had restricted the basis on which assets can qualify for this 100 per cent. relief, as defined in clause 174, we sought not just to return to the status quo ante but to go a stage further, to enable those affected by the clause to have two two-year tests. So, we have improved the legislation. I take what the hon. Gentleman said in the spirit in which he delivered his remarks. While even we Conservatives remain human beings, we shall do our best to try to get it right in future.