AGGREGATES LEVY: EVASION, MISDECLARATION AND NEGLECT (Hansard, 23 April 2001)

§ Mr. Ottaway
Again, I wish to probe the Minister's thinking on what seems to be a heavy hand in the drafting. 97 I accept his claim that schedule 5 follows past precedents. None the less, I would be surprised if that were the case with schedule 6, which creates a new series of criminal offences in relation to evasion of the aggregates levy. That appears to be a massive overkill, given that the Crown can already prosecute for conspiracy to defraud or for the common law offence of cheating.
Paragraph 3 of part I is especially offensive, because it states that A person is guilty of an offence under this paragraph if his conduct during any particular period must have involved the commission by him of one or more offences under the preceding provisions of this Schedule. That is tantamount to guilt by mere submission and could lead, in this case, to a prison sentence of up to seven years or an unlimited fine. The test of guilt must be much tighter, because we cannot have people subject to such penalties on the suspicion that they must have been involved in the commission of an offence.

§ Mr. Timms
The schedule covers procedures for evasion, misdeclaration and neglect, and specifies several offences and the related penalties. It deals, therefore, with the criminal offences and the sentences regime for the aggregates levy. Breaches of most of the requirements stemming from the law or regulations are covered by a civil penalty regime, but criminal sanctions are still needed for serious cases of fraudulent evasion of the levy and other serious offences. Effective punishment must be available for those who break the law or who seek to evade payment of the levy.
The schedule also provides for a civil penalty for fraudulent evasion of the levy. As is common practice in other tax areas, it allows Customs and Excise the discretion to deal under the civil penalty regime with an offence that would otherwise require prosecution as a criminal offence. That point may be of some reassurance to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). The provision is an incentive for the taxpayer to co-operate with Customs and Excise once the fraud has been discovered and also prevents needless expense being incurred by prosecuting offences involving small amounts through the criminal courts. That allows some flexibility, which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome.
I did not entirely follow the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman has with paragraph 3(1), because it is a straightforward statement that breaches of the provisions set out earlier in the schedule constitute an offence.

§ Mr. Ottaway
The Minister is going right to the point. The words are "must have": no evidence needs to be produced. There need only be suspicion, and in my judgment that is not good enough, when there are such heavy fines or a seven-year prison sentence.

§ Mr. Timms
I do not think that that is what is envisaged. The normal arrangements for evidence and court process will of course apply. I see no particular cause for alarm. If I am missing something, the hon. Gentleman might drop me a line and I will be happy to pursue the matter further. Again, I think that this is an entirely conventional arrangement.