---

Finance (No. 2) Bill

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) makes an excellent point. The Paymaster General’s response suggests that the original drafting was poor; there was certainly much uncertainty and the amendments could have resolved the matter. However, if the answer is none, why did we go through all these proceedings, when we could have been in the same position originally if the Treasury had taken its time and held consultations? It completely failed to do so. The Paymaster General said earlier that part of the whole process of dealing with Bills such as this is for the Government to listen to outside advisers and make changes accordingly. I accept that amendments have been made to deal with uncontroversial technical points, but these provisions are more fundamental. The Government changed their policy substantially and produced something out of the blue, and then realised that their proposals would hit people they did not intend to hit. I accept that they did not intend the provisions to be as widespread as they turned out to be in reality. That is not listening to outside advisers—it is a fundamental failure. The Government produced something that did not work and caused much upset and uncertainty. No doubt, it was a boon to the legal profession as clients charge off to their law firms for further advice, which is not to be welcomed—and I speak as a former lawyer. As we have heard, there was consultation two years ago about the definition of a disabled person. It appears that the Government are insisting on continuing to rely on the definition in the Mental Health Act 1983. An alternative definition is available but we hear that they do not want to rely on it because it is in legislation that has not yet come into force. I am at a loss to understand why one should not use such a definition. The point of a definition is to define something; the context does not matter particularly. If the definition works, why not use it? But if the definition in the Mental Health Act and the alternative definition are inappropriate, why not use a new one? There is widespread concern that the proposed law with regard to disabled persons and trusts is inadequate. I am grateful to a constituent who informed me of the submission made on that point by the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, which stated that the definition in"““the Mental Health Act 1983 is inadequate to deal with people who have partial, fluctuating or diminishing mental capacity—people with a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease, for example, or of schizophrenia.””" I have heard nothing this afternoon to suggest that the Government’s approach is justifiable. They have made a series of U-turns and backed down on a series of points, but they should still concede some important points, and this is one of them. Perhaps the Paymaster General will make a forceful argument—no doubt, she will be forceful, but whether she will be persuasive is another matter—but the Government should table further amendment, as they have done on many occasions. Most importantly, will the Government refrain from the cheap shot of putting out a policy that involves no understanding of how trusts work in practice and does nothing but cause uncertainty and create legal fees? The Government’s policy does nothing to address tax avoidance, but it encourages their Back Benchers to fly the class-warrior flag. That is poor government, and the Government have rightly had to back down.