Proceeding contribution from Mark Hoban (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 4 July 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
What the Economic Secretary has said demonstrates why the position is not as clear as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West suggested. Let me now deal with an issue that relates to amendments Nos. 62 and 14. The Chartered Institute of Taxation said that it was happy with both the clause and the guidance notes. The clause will remain on the statute book if the Bill is given its Third Reading tomorrow, but the guidance notes will not be on the statute book. HMRC can alter them. My point is that there should be more certainty and more clarity about the tax regime. That is why the amending provisions propose that the Treasury be given regulation-making powers to set out the application of sub-paragraph (2) in order to create that certainty. The issues covered in the guidance notes would then be on the statute book through secondary legislation, so they could not suddenly disappear or be changed overnight without proper parliamentary scrutiny. Revenue and Customs and the Treasury would then be forced to produce clear, watertight wording rather than use 21 examples to clear up the scope and application of clause 159. It provides a way of moving from abstract philosophical treatises to the concrete reality of law and regulation. We would also be able to revisit the guidance when it changes as the statutory instruments would need to be amended. I was grateful to the Economic Secretary in Committee when he made a kind offer, namely, that if significant material changes were made in the guidance, he would ensure that they were circulated to the Opposition so that we would have a chance to comment upon them. He said that he would take advice to ensure that the Government continued to take a consultative approach to guidance issues. I am flattered, as would be my successor, to be given the opportunity to comment at some point when the guidance changes, but rather than leaving it to a single Member to comment, it would be preferable if the Committee had the opportunity to question the regulations. My proposals are an attempt to achieve some clarity, consistency and parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that the guidance notes, which are such an integral part of the application of clause 159, achieve a degree of security and certainty. It is an important matter and I conclude my remarks on that point.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 448 c721-2
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disability Children Death Conservation Combined heat and power Annuities Dependants Environment protection Electricity generation Energy supply Divorce Excise duties Fuels Inheritance tax Income Mental illness Motor vehicles Oil Pollution Pensions Life insurance Petrol Scotland Religion Separation Taxation VAT Trusts Stamp duties Rural areas
- Legislation
- Finance (No. 2) Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 23:25:29 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334767
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334767
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334767