§ Question proposed That the clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. LetwinI do not intend to detain the Committee long on this point but, following the previous debate, the Financial Secretary should tell us whether the Government are willing to consider how smaller operators in the industry will be attacked by the tax. They will go through the processes outlined in these clauses, will not 121 receive the courtesy of an answer from the commissioners and will have to go to tribunal. How will their costs be dealt with?
10.45 pm
We are dealing with a serious problem of justice involving people who, by the definition of the case, have not had an answer. As my hon. Friends explained, those people will not know the grounds on which they have not received an answer. They will be put to expense and, presumably, might have to bear the expense of others. What defence does the Minister envisage they will have against the possibly disastrous effects of those costs on their business?
§ Mr. TimmsI make the point again that the arrangements are precisely those that apply elsewhere in the tax system—in most instances under provisions introduced by the previous Government—and they work well. I see no reason why they should not do so in this case. They have been structured in a similar way to those that apply to other indirect taxes.
It is part of the normal relationship between the taxpayer and tax collector to engage in meetings and correspondence to resolve disputes. It is incumbent on the taxpayer to resolve disputes and satisfy the relevant authorities that revenue is secure, accounts and records are accurate and proper duty of care is exercised. That formal review stage exists to resolve disputes. It is not intended to be burdensome or to impose additional costs on the taxpayer. The arrangements work well elsewhere and will work well in these circumstances.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.