---

Finance (No. 2) Bill

In a moment. I come to an important point—the definition of ““not significant””, which the Paymaster General briefly addressed in her introductory remarks. If the existing exemptions are removed by clause 61, an associated issue arises; how computers provided by employers to employees will be taxed. As the RIA states at paragraph 22:"““If significant private use is made of a computer provided for business purposes a tax charge will arise on the private use element based on the value of the computer and the extent of the business and private use. Employers will also be liable to Class 1A National Insurance contributions.””" That could lead to a significant compliance burden for employers if they are required to police the extent of private use by their employees. As the British Chambers of Commerce state in The Times today,"““Businesses have already seen the cost of implementing government regulation rise to over £50 billion since 1998, so to introduce in the small print of the Budget another measure such as this one will further serve to burden employers and impact on their ability to compete effectively.””" The Government have responded by arguing that there will be no tax or NIC liability if such use is deemed to be ““not significant””, but have not clarified how that will be defined. If clause 61 remains part of the Bill, it is vital that that is clarified so that both employers and employees know where they stand. The RIA states at paragraph 73 that HMRC will"““invite employer representatives to work with them as they develop guidance which will articulate their approach for handling compliance and administration issues that flow from the changes announced in the Budget.””" I think I heard the Paymaster General reiterate, but I will ask her to repeat beyond peradventure in her winding-up speech, that the Government are planning to consult industry so that they can clearly define ““not significant”” and the matter can be clarified once and for all. If that is the Government’s intention, can the Paymaster General estimate how long the process will take? For instance, does she anticipate that it will be concluded successfully by July, as suggested in paragraph 74 of the RIA? Even better, if clause 61 were removed from the Bill, the current exemptions would remain in place and the issue would not arise. As The Times argued this morning in a leader sub-titled ““The Treasury sends another nasty message to business””,"““Treasury officials have promised to take a ‘practical’ view of how much private use should be regarded as ‘significant’. The most practical approach, when the issue is debated in the Commons today, would be to withdraw it. We are watching.””" That is another good reason for deleting clause 61. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills).