---

Finance Bill

: I share many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), particularly about the measures that the Treasury has introduced to deal with tax avoidance. The scope of those measures means that we often have to rely on the word of the Paymaster General, who is effectively telling us, ““Trust me, I’m the Paymaster General.”” That is an enticing invitation given that she has been in that post for a lengthy period, but she will not occupy it for ever. These powers might be used by people with a less beneficent view than the one that she expresses towards taxpayers. It is unfortunate that the checks and balances in the Bill are not stronger, because the scope of the measures—I am thinking particularly of schedule 8 and transfer pricing, for example—and the powers that we have given to HMRC are very substantial indeed. In another neck of the woods entirely, I regret, and I believe we will have in our constituency surgeries a substantial number of complaints about, the Treasury’s unwillingness to be a little more flexible on the gift aid provisions relating to museum admissions. Setting a minimum of one year or requiring an excess charge of 10 per cent. over the entry price means that a number of smaller museums will suffer considerable problems. The performance of those on the Treasury Bench on the issue of REITs—real estate investment trusts—reminded me of the recent performance of the Paymaster General in dealing with another classic Treasury case, that of tax credits, where the issue is not the objective of a particular policy, but its implementation. REITs is another case of the Treasury failing to deliver on promises made time and again to the House in respect of a measure that has wide cross-party support across the Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Government Benches. Once again, the Treasury has not delivered, on a measure that would provide a real prospect of the financial services industry being more competitive in an area where a number of other countries—the United States and various continental countries—have already introduced similar measures. On simplification of the tax regime, we were disappointed that the Treasury was not more open-minded in introducing a proposal for a tax law commission. That has wide support among professionals, who are after all the people advising us on the matter and also HMRC. The tax law commission would go beyond the tax law rewrite project in being able to propose ways of simplifying the tax code that would command broad support. The argument from the Treasury Bench was that the commission would pre-empt the powers of the House of Commons. I do not believe that for a minute. It would be a professional body that could put forward proposals, and the Government could accept or reject them. The insurance provisions tell us more about the motivation of the Bill than almost anything else. A substantial change is proposed in the basis of the taxation of the life assurance industry through secondary regulation powers given to the Treasury without adequate consultation or scrutiny in the House. That tells me that the Treasury is rather more worried about the prospect of revenue than about the prospect of good tax legislation. Finally, I thank the Clerks for all the support they have given my hon. Friends and me in tabling amendments. I thank the Economic Secretary for the assurances that he gave us earlier today on the qualified investor schemes, which will be of benefit to the City and the financial services industry. I thank you, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your support through these often arduous proceedings.