Finance Bill

Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2004.

Standing Committee A

(except clauses 4, 5, 20, 28, 57 to 77, 86, 111, and 282 to 289, and schedules 1, 3, 11, 12, 21 and 37 to 39

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

Gentlemen may remove jackets; it is a bit warm today. Of course, ladies do not need ask.Clause 79 Exemption for loaned computer equipment

Clause 79 - Exemption for loaned computer equipment

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I beg to move amendment No. 59, in

clause 79, page 75, line 21, leave out '£500' and insert '£550'.

May I take this opportunity to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. McWilliam, for the challenging and exacting, but nevertheless interesting, day ahead?

The clause will extend the home computing initiative to cases where benefit would be taxable as earnings; for example, where an employee is offered a loan of a computer instead of a salary. Amendment No. 59 would change the exemption, but, as I am sure eagle-eyed members of the Committee will realise, not by a great deal—from £500 to £550. Its purpose is to establish the Government's reasoning for retaining the figure of £500, so it is a probing amendment.

As I understand it, the origins of the scheme lie in the Finance Act 1999, and the idea was to widen the availability of information technology. That goal is a good one for employees and employers alike. The £500 is a annual taxable benefit, so it translates into £2,500 as an actual capital purchase because, at that point, an asset would be taxed at 20 per cent. In 1999, that represented a reasonable cost for a home computer, printer and so on. However, in the five years since the basic standards of computing have changed, as hon. Members are aware. Computers have changed in terms of their capability, the range of peripherals that are engaged and connectivity. I know that a number of hon. Members have a particular interest in internet access and other such activities. It is internet access that particularly concerns me. Taking that into account, and the other essential back-up equipment such as scanners and printers, there is a serious question whether the taxable benefit offered is up to date with current home computing needs.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I am happy to give way.

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

Order. May I remind hon. Members that the amendment is very narrow? It deals with the difference between £500 and £550.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Thank you for that guidance, Mr. McWilliam. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that since 1999, the cost of most computing equipment has fallen?

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

That is why I have made sure that the increase is very small. In some ways, it is a notional increase because, as I said, the aim of the exercise is to understand the reasoning behind the £500 figure, rather than to argue that there has been a vast inflation in computer prices. There have been changes in capability and connectivity, but the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that there has not been a huge inflation in the hardware costs.

To conclude, I ask the Paymaster General to clarify what is included as eligible equipment. Is the installation of ISDN or broadband access included? That point was not relevant in 1999, but it is now. Clearly, in a home computer initiative that concerns an employer-employee relationship, we would expect internet access to be broadband, so it would be interesting to know whether that has been incorporated in the Government's proposals. Do the Government intend to adjust the limit in the coming years in light of computing cost changes?

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

Good morning, Mr. McWilliam. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) has pointed out, the amendment proposes a modest increase. I take him at his word when he says that he is seeking to find out why the Government have left the figure at £500, rather than have the £550 exemption he proposes.

Under the hon. Gentleman's proposal, where the employer owns the computer equipment and the annual tax charge is therefore 20 per cent. of its value, up to £2,750 could be lent tax-free instead of the present value. He proposes that the exemption rise from £2,500 to £2,750 and that, if the employer leases or hires the equipment, the exemption would cover the leasing charge of £550 instead of the current £500.

The hon. Gentleman said that the increase was modest. I will not pretend to the Committee that the amendment has any significant prospects. It is true, however, that the £500 annual value limit has remained unchanged since the exemption was introduced in 1999 and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) said, the price of IT equipment has generally fallen in recent years.

If the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford were to look at the current price of packages, he would see that a complete package costs £500 to £600, as opposed to up to £2,500. Widespread advertising indicates to us that £500 for the package is reasonable. An IT package for an individual home user can be purchased for under £1,000. The current exemption allows equipment of a value up to £2,500, so it takes on board the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, including those about other costs.

The questions about the general impact of exemption and the review are very relevant.

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

Order. Every member of the Committee potentially has an interest in the amendment, so I shall declare it for all of them.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Mr. McWilliam, you are quite right to identify that there is, if not a conflict of interest, then a particular potential close interest. Will the Paymaster General therefore confirm that eligible equipment, leaving aside the argument about whether it is owned by the employer, includes the items to which I referred, namely the installation of broadband access and/or ISDN access?

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

Under the current exemption, the telecommunications costs are not included but the equipment costs are.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Will the Paymaster General clarify that? Clearly, some Members will be thinking to themselves, ''Where is the line to be drawn between paying, say, British Telecom to install the box and the subsequent subscription?'' I assume that they are defined as two different things, but for employers' sakes it would be helpful to clarify that.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I assume that they are two different issues: one is the installation and the other is the ongoing cost. That is the line that I draw, but if I am wrong, I shall of course write to the hon. Gentleman. I understand that installation—he gives the example of an ISDN line—would be included, but there is obviously an ongoing cost, which would not be included in the exemption: so, the hardware, yes; the telecommunications or ongoing costs, no.

Since the exemption was introduced, we have not had exact figures on the take-up for obvious deregulatory reasons. Employers do not have to report to the Inland Revenue details of an exempt benefit. Other information, particularly the changing arrangements between employee and employer—the introduction of flexible working and the growth of home working, particularly in IT, the development of which has assisted work-from-home—demonstrates that, increasingly, employers are loaning employees computers. We are trying not to get mixed-up private use but to give a blanket exemption. That ensures that, if computers are used for any other private purpose, there is no benefit tax charge. That is important. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve that, because our aim is to encourage the use of technologies.

That raises the question about the work of the e-envoy, the campaigns that the Department of Trade and Industry is developing on the home computer initiative and the results of that. This seems to me to be an appropriate time to return to the point about whether £500 is enough.

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

The Paymaster General made an interesting comment when telling the Committee that no detailed returns were kept about the uptake of the proposal. If that is the case, on what basis will the Government evaluate whether it has been a success?

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I know that the right hon. Gentleman always has an interest in these areas. I can tell him that the recently launched national home computing initiative aims substantially to boost take-up of the computer home loans schemes among employers and employees. It is led by the Office of the e-Envoy and within the remit of the DTI, and it will be monitoring take-up in the coming months. That information will demonstrate to us whether the £500 is reasonable, what type of equipment is being purchased and how wide take-up is.

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

Order. This debate has gone so wide that, if Members want to make any points about clause stand part, they may as well make them now, because I feel totally disinclined to allow clause stand part.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I apologise. I was trying to be helpful to the Committee and did not mean to stray beyond the amendment.

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

It was not particularly the Paymaster General who I was getting at. She was not alone, but the debate has become so wide that it would be wrong of me to allow one on clause stand part. So, will any Members who want to make a point in clause stand part make it now?

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I was concluding my remarks by saying to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford why I think that the £500 is reasonable at this point given the reduction in the cost of IT packages. None the less take-up is a live issue and one that both sides of the Committee want to encourage.

We particularly want to make sure that the exemption is simple to operate and, therefore, to reduce requirements to report to the Inland Revenue. The campaign being undertaken by the Office of the e-Envoy will, I sincerely hope, provide the information necessary for the Government to make the judgment that the hon. Gentleman is probing us to make—whether the limit is correct—and check the point that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) made about whether the limit is working in assisting the expansion of the home computer schemes and boosting the relationship between employee and employer.

On that basis, I hope that I have dealt with the questions that the hon. Gentleman has raised and, therefore, that he will not press his amendment. Even though I said that it was modest, if he put it to a vote, I would, at this stage, reluctantly have to ask my hon. Friends to oppose it.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

The Paymaster General has run through the issues raised in a helpful manner. As I said, this is a modest amendment; in fact, it is perhaps better described as shy. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for elaborating on the points raised. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 - Vans

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

May I ask for your guidance, Mr. McWilliam? As you will see, the main effect of the measure is contained in schedule 14. I do not want to try your patience by speaking for too long in the clause stand part debate on the general issues raised by the proposal, only to be told that I have lost my chance to speak on schedule 14. It would be helpful to know what your views are.

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

The clause is very narrow. It merely gives effect to the schedule and states which year it has effect from. The meat is in the schedule, so will the Committee please have the debate when we get to the schedule?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 - Vans

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

This is a good example of the Government at their worst in tax matters. It is a small example, but it is quite interesting. It is a small vignette of the major problem that we face. We know that the Government have lost control of fiscal policy, as I argued in detail on Second Reading. That was never refuted. They desperately need money. They are borrowing £37 billion or £38 billion and they are thrashing around in desperation looking to get money back from any taxpayer they can find who may be vulnerable to a new provision of this kind. Their eyes have alighted on van drivers, and I am afraid that van drivers are therefore being targeted and that as much money will screwed out of them as possible. That is basically the purpose of the measure.

Another aspect of the schedule, which is a microcosm of the Bill, in that it is extraordinarily heavy-handed. The Government are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, or, perhaps I should say, a van driver. The schedule is six and a half pages long, and, as if that was not enough, there are another six pages of explanatory notes. When there are as many pages of explanatory notes as there are pages in the Bill, something is clearly wrong. There are endless laborious definitions of new bureaucratic concepts such as business travel requirements, commuter use requirements and restricted private use provisions.

There are even two equations. They are mercifully relatively simple linear equations, but I do not doubt that one day the Government will come up with provisions that require us all to solve differential

equations in order to work out our tax liability, and that we will go to jail if we do not succeed. I am afraid I shall be joining the group going to jail—I better not say that because it might be a rather seductive prospect for the Government; I do not want to give them ideas.

I do not know whether it is true that most van drivers naturally think algebraically and will think it helpful to have their tax liability expressed in terms of equations. However, it is possible that not all van drivers think algebraically. The Government must think about the complexity that they are introducing into the Taxes Acts with measures of this kind. They are not defining a liability to a purely corporate tax, such as petroleum revenue tax, which no individual ever pays.

It is certainly not good enough to say that the employer will have the task of assessing employees under the provision, because—I hope that the Government will not disagree with me—it is important that employees understand the basis of the tax code that the employer gives them. Any kind of mystification that makes it more difficult for employees to understand their position under PAYE is inherently undesirable. It is not an excuse for this kind of complexity to say that under PAYE the employer will have the burden of doing most of the calculation.

Nor is it an excuse—I say this having worked with the Charted Institute of Taxation for many years —that people who do not understand such things can always go to professional advisers. That is not an acceptable answer from the Government. I do not believe that that is right, and nor do members of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which is high-minded about such matters and not cynical. It believes that we should not generate additional, gratuitous complexity simply to provide an earning stream for advisers. Undue complexity is an important issue and anyone who cares to waste quarter of an hour of their lives by reading the schedule in detail will recognise that it is extremely heavy-handed and convoluted.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, since 1993, when the £500 was introduced, there has been some inflation and, furthermore, a change in the nature of people's vehicles? Some people avoid company car taxation by obtaining what purports to be a van because of the changing nature of available vehicles.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I fear that I cannot go along with the hon. Gentleman on either of those points. There has been some inflation, but not of 600 per cent., which is the difference between the £500 and the £3,000 that van drivers may have to pay if we accept the schedule. I am not an expert on the changes in the types of vehicles available, so I shall leave him to enlighten the Committee if he feels that that is relevant to our deliberations.

The sad thing is that, despite this extraordinarily heavy apparatus for attacking poor van drivers, the result is imprecise and slovenly drafting which leaves open all sorts of ambiguities. I refer the Committee to paragraph 5 of the schedule, which inserts new section

155 into the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. New subsection (4) states that the restricted private use condition is met if

''the commuter use requirement is satisfied throughout the year . . . or the extent to which it is not satisfied during that period is insignificant''.

What does ''insignificant'' mean? If you use a van once a month or once every three months, is that significant? That is extremely unhelpful and will be difficult not just for the van driver but for the employer to get right.

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

Order. I draw the Committee's attention to the use of the word ''you''. The only vehicle I use is my wife's car and only at her mercy.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is trying to have it both ways? He criticises the Government for introducing heavy-handed, over-complex legislation, but cites a new subsection containing realistic flexibility and slags off the Government for that.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

The hon. Gentleman is 180° wrong. The Government have got it wrong because they seem to think that by drafting this extremely heavy schedule they can accurately define all possibilities and leave no room for doubt, but they have not succeeded in doing so. I shall propose a way in which that might be possible using a 10th or less of the words in the schedule to produce a fair system without those ambiguities. I refer the Committee to new subsection (5) which states:

''The commuter use requirement is satisfied at any time if— the terms on which the van is available to the employee at the time prohibit its private use otherwise than for the purposes of ordinary commuting or travel . . . neither the employee nor a member of the employee's family or household makes private use of the van at the time otherwise than for those purposes.''

Does ''at the time'' mean at the time when the commuter run or travel is being undertaken, or at any time when the van driver has the theoretical liability because he has use of the van? Great ambiguity is being introduced into the Bill. If it means the former, narrower definition, does that mean that someone cannot drop their child off at school on the way to work while claiming the commuter use? Perhaps the Government will explain what they have in mind, because it is unclear to me what ''at the time'' means. Perhaps it means just the relevant part of the year when the van is available.

Similarly, new subsection (7) states:

''The business travel requirement is satisfied at a time if the van is available to the employee at the time mainly for use for the purposes of the employee's business travel''.

''Mainly'' is identified in the Taxes Act 1988 as being more than 50 per cent. Are the courts expected to apply that definition in this case? Again, the provision is loosely drafted, despite the enormous effort that has gone into producing excessively long and convoluted legislation. It is not a good day's work by the Government.

I shall make three points in conclusion. First, the provision is unfair. It involves an enormous increase from £500 to £3,000, which is not at all reasonable.

More important, you might inadvertently—I use the word ''you'' in the sense of ''one''. I suppose that one is allowed to make use of the impersonal you.

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

Order. The third person is always in order.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

''One'' sounds a little stilted, which is why I tend to avoid it. A van driver—third person singular—may inadvertently exceed the legitimate use of his vehicle for non-business purposes. For example, if he drops off a child at school once, it is insignificant. If he does it regularly, is it significant? What happens if he does it once a week? We just do not know.

A driver could fall into the trap of going over the limit and suddenly find himself being assessed for a benefit in kind of £3,000, possibly for something that took him five minutes out of his way, or did not take him out of his way at all but simply involved stopping for 30 seconds outside a school. That is not reasonable, and those on the Treasury Bench are not rushing to their feet to correct my interpretation.

Secondly, the provision is striking in that it is completely unnecessary. It does not cover the self-employed driver at all and, anecdotally, most vans are owned by self-employed business men. My understanding of the Taxes Act 1988 is that it is perfectly legitimate for a self-employed person to claim the portion of the use of a van that is for business as a business expense, and not to claim the portion that is for private use. The balance might vary from year to year: for example, 60-40, 50-50 or 70-30. That system works perfectly well. People discuss with their inspector of taxes, if he wants to quibble about it, what reasonable business use is. Why not replicate such common-sense arrangements, which are already a part of tax common law, rather than thrust this extremely onerous bureaucracy on us?

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that every employee who has a company vehicle, whether a van or a company car, should enter into negotiations with his or her local inspector of taxes to determine what proportion of use is for business and what is private? He says that the provision is a problem because it is bureaucratic, but he suggests something that is immensely bureaucratic.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood how this aspect of taxation works. The employer would have to take responsibility for determining whether a van that has been provided to the employee is 100 per cent. a business instrument, something to be used in connection with the business, or available for private use, and then modify the employee's tax code accordingly under PAYE. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the way in which employees are taxed.

Finally, the provision does not relate at all to provisions in a Finance Bill some years ago on taxation of cars provided by employers and the extent to which private use is allowed. The value to the employee of the non-business use of a company car is graded according to the car's emissions. Perhaps there is some difference between the emissions of vans and the emissions of

passenger cars, meaning it would have been unreasonable to take the emissions criterion into account, in which case one could have simply defined a van for this purpose as being a car with a particular capacity or level of emissions.

The whole matter could have been dealt with equally fairly in two lines while introducing no different procedures from those that already exist for cars, which—Lord knows—are already complex enough. The Government have gone overboard. In their desperation to try to screw the last penny they can out of poor van drivers, who will understandably feel that they are being invidiously targeted by the Government, they have come up with a measure that will cause an enormous amount of wasted time and compliance effort on the part of employers, and a corresponding degree of consumption of time and public money in the Revenue.

The Government have proceeded on the wrong lines. They have something that is neither precise and unambiguous—which would have been a virtue if they had got right this extraordinarily laborious, bureaucratic system that they want to put in place—nor simple. They could have had a simpler and more unambiguous process.

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for opening the batting on the issue. I would like to ask whichever Minister is to respond for a little help on the question of definition.

My first question concerns the Treasury's definition of a van. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West alluded to the fact that the nature of a light commercial vehicle has changed over time. If a company provided an employee with a modern utility vehicle that had four comfortable seats and a truck formation at the back, which could be used in comfort for leisure and pleasure as much as business, there is not a great deal of difference between that and a company car with a big boot. If there were such a benefit in kind one would understand it if the Government wished to tax those vehicles in the same way as company cars. The reverse may well be true if the van is strictly utilitarian and full of the tools of the trade—perhaps even without a passenger seat. It is important to understand what constitutes a van, and what might reasonably be expected to be used for leisure and pleasure.

The next area on which I would be grateful for clarification concerns the on-call employee. That is someone in a highly mobile capacity who appears to be exempt from the provisions of the schedule because they are involved in what is called normal business travel. However, because they might be away from their home base for two or three days calling at a number of different business locations, they might conduct private business in the course of that travel. They might stop at a supermarket to do shopping. If they are not immediately on call, they might go to some place of pleasure and look at the view. Intermingled with their business requirements, there is a certain amount of leisure use of the vehicle.

I would be interested to learn whether that comes under restricted use—in other words, if the employer defines that within the context of carrying out various business mileage while being on call, the employee can also go to the supermarket and carry out various other duties. That would help us to make the distinction between the normal flexibilities of the use of a commercial vehicle as opposed to the outright use of a vehicle masquerading as a van that is simply a company car by any other name. I hope that we can have some further qualification of what the schedule does and does not cover.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The schedule, alongside clause 80, introduces a major deregulation of company van rules. It reforms the system of scale charges and bases them on the type of private use, with a new fuel charge where an employer provides fuel for unrestricted private use. The current rules, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, were introduced in 1993, have remained unchanged since then and no longer fit modern working practices.

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

How many vans does the schedule cover, how many does the hon. Gentleman anticipate being brought into tax, particularly in 2007, as a result of these provisions, and how much revenue will be raised?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The number of company-provided vans is about 290,000—a figure that we have been able to calculate from the detailed and helpful responses that we received during the extensive consultation on our proposals last year. I will come on to the question of revenue later, in answer to the points made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies).

We have consulted widely on this measure with employers and other interested parties. The responses that we received contributed significantly to the reform package, and a report on the consultation was published in April.

The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford asked a number of specific questions about drafting and terminology, which I will come to later, when I will also pick up on the points made by the right hon. Member for Fylde. I would say quite gently to the former that the general remarks that he made at the beginning were misdirected. First, he accused the Government of using this as a tax-raising measure. In fact, it removes the tax charge from 85 per cent. of van drivers. Not only that, but it will cost the Exchequer £30 million a year for the first two years.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that the measure is somehow heavy-handed and over-complex. In fact, it reduces the administrative burden on employers. That has been recognised by the Small Business Service, and the measures have received a wide welcome from manufacturers, industry and employers.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

The Economic Secretary was very careful in saying that the measure would reduce revenue for two years. The charge does not go up to the

full £3,000 for two years. What will the position be when the charge has gone up from £500 to £3,000? Will there still be a revenue loss to the Exchequer?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Our estimates suggest that from 2007 onwards the measure will be revenue-neutral. For the first two years, there will be a cost to the Treasury of £30 million each year, and when the package as a whole comes into force from 2007, we will be talking about a revenue-neutral change.

The hon. Gentleman asked why we did not base the proposals for the reform of the taxation of company-provided vans on those for the reform of company car taxes. He is right that company car tax reforms base the system on emissions from the cars. The simple fact is that information about emissions is not yet available for vans and it was not an option that we were able seriously to pursue.

The hon. Gentleman also asked why we did not treat employees who were van drivers in the same way as the self-employed. The measures in the package of reform reflect the representations that we received during the consultation from employers, and they have been widely welcomed by those employers. It has long been recognised that there are different rules for employees and the self-employed. The measure is about the taxation of benefits in kind, which is an employee issue, and there is therefore no reason to align it with those of the self-employed.

The hon. Gentleman asked several questions about the meaning of some of the terminology in the schedule. He asked about the meaning of ''insignificant''. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made a very useful point when he said that rather than trying to specify the working practices and arrangements in every workplace in the Bill, the schedule allows a measure of flexibility that reflects the reality of workplaces.

I will exemplify some uses that might be deemed insignificant by the Inland Revenue. Insignificant use might include an employee request for a one-off private use to take an old mattress to the tip, an employee regularly making a slight detour to stop at a newsagent on the way to work, or to drop off a child at school, as the hon. Gentleman said, or stopping off at a dentist on the way home. Essentially, we wanted to avoid the case in which a one-off journey outside the strict scope of the home-work travel route propelled an employee into a £3,000 charge.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

The Economic Secretary has been very helpful in elucidating those points. If an employee delivers his child every day to school with his van, is it regarded as insignificant non-business use?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

If that is a stop-off en route, it will be acceptable. Introducing the provision for insignificant use simplifies the procedures for employers by enabling them to dismiss intermittent or incidental private use. Beyond that, the Revenue is examining the representations that have been made by some of the professional bodies and taking account of the concerns that have naturally been raised since the publication of

the Bill. We plan to publish guidance after the Bill has received Royal Assent that will further help employers.

The right hon. Member for Fylde asked about the definition of a van. He rather eloquently described what are known in the trade as double cab pick-ups. Although the Revenue and Customs have used a consistent and single definition of double cab pick-ups since 2002-03, changes in manufacture and vehicle design inevitably create some blurred boundaries. Broadly, vehicles that can legally carry payloads of 1 tonne or more will not be treated as cars. A car is primarily for the carriage of people; a van is primarily for the carriage of goods.

From 6 April next year, a nil charge will apply to employees who take their van home and are not allowed any further private use. That responds directly to the representations of employers that most employees are provided with a van for work and are expected to take it home overnight. In future there will be no tax or national insurance charge in such circumstances, which will involve about 85 per cent. of van drivers and save the basic rate taxpayer as a van driver about £110 per year.

If unrestricted private use is allowed, the existing scale charges depending on the age of the van will apply. However, from 6 April 2007, employees who choose to make full private use of their company van will be taxed on £3,000, which will mean tax of about £55 per month or £660 per year for a basic rate taxpayer. If an employer also provides free fuel for unrestricted private use, a new fuel charge of £500 will apply, meaning tax of about £9 per month for a basic rate taxpayer.

The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford implied a concern for the environment and asked why the Government did not introduce a scheme based on emissions for vans, but the regime that we are proposing will help the environment. The reform abolishes a rather perverse incentive to drive older and more polluting vehicles because the tax charge on them is lower. The new fuel charge will reduce the blanket acceptance of fuel charge for private use and make it a matter of choice and consequence for employees. The introduction of a nil charge will limit private use to travel from home to work for more than 85 per cent. of users, generating a reduction in the amount of private mileage undertaken in commercial vehicles.

The reform will also reduce the overall administrative burden on employers. I mentioned the Small Business Service's recognition of that. We have consulted, listened, acted on the responses and recognised that company vans are used differently from company cars. The schedule modernises the tax rules for company vans and exempts more than 85 per cent. of current van users from tax charge altogether. It provides a major deregulation for employers, with scale charges in the future that properly reflect the benefit of private use. It has been praised and welcomed by the industry, by manufacturers, by representative bodies and by employers. On 25 March, Fleet News said in an article that the reform was

''a major boost for van fleets''.

On that basis, I commend the schedule to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

Clause 81 - Emergency vehicles

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I cannot deliver the same strictures on this clause as I did on the previous one, because it is quite a simple clause and takes up less than a page of legislation. The Government can be commended for that. I think that the main purpose is very sensible. It is that, where employees are required to be on call because they work in the emergency services, no private use issue should arise. That seems to be eminently sensible. I do not think that any of us would think that emergency vehicles were suitable for general private leisure use. I am certainly not arguing that.

As in the last clause, there is a rather steep threshold, and if one should find oneself, inadvertently or otherwise, going over the threshold into private use, one would have to pay a large amount of money. However, I do not think that there is any serious objection to the clause. I think that it is a useful reform.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82 - European travel expenses of MPs and other representatives

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

I think that I had better declare a blanket interest for all of us.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. McWilliam. If I understand it correctly, we cannot do anything about the clause, as we are simply implementing a resolution of the House.

The provision updates and modernises the existing arrangements giving tax exemption for EU travel expenses paid to MPs. It covers travel

''between the UK and a relevant European location''

and defines ''European location'' as an EU ''institution or agency''. It is effective from 6 April 2004.

I have great reservations about the arrangements. I think that they bring MPs into disrepute. There is no logical argument for paying expenses to potter across to Europe rather than paying expenses to go to see a politician in America. Both are equally important or non-important. I think that it is widely open to abuse and to swans. I am pleased to say that, as a deliberate matter of principle, I have never used it, although I

have visited European politicians on many occasions. It is the sort of arrangement that I think we would be better off without, but here we are with it.

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

A resolution in the House is not a constraint on a Committee. We make law by legislation. We do it in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and we are not bound by a resolution of the House.

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

I rise to disagree fundamentally with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). It is not often that I express publicly what I think privately, but it is important to put on the record the common sense of what is in the clause. My hon. Friend says that it is an open sesame to freebies and general ill use of public funds. I would remind him that MPs are exempt from taxation on expenses for travel within the United Kingdom, including travel to places such as Belfast. For some years, the House of Commons has increasingly and correctly attempted to gain greater control over the use of moneys for MPs' travel, just as it is getting greater and more detailed control over the use of MPs' expenses in general. There is always an interesting friction on such matters between the Revenue and MPs, but I am pleased to say that harmony usually results.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

I am more in tune with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. Can the right hon. Gentleman help me by telling me what is meant by the words ''and other representatives'', and what he believes travel expenses to be? For example, do they cover the cost of accommodation? If such expenses were met by an outside company that paid extortionate expenses, would they also be exempt?

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

If I were the Minister, I might answer those questions. Sadly, I am on this side of the Room and not the other. I am sure that the Treasury has heard, as was mentioned at the beginning of the debate on this clause, that this is a resolution of the House. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, coming from the party that purports to be in favour and strongly supportive of the European Union, should even have to ask such questions. I am sure that he is familiar with resolutions of the House about the way in which expenses are provided for travel to European institutions as defined by the clause. The expenses that we are allowed to claim for are closely defined, as is the number of journeys that we can claim for in any one year. It is not completely open to us to travel where and when we want or to see anyone we want. The terms of the travel allowance and expenses provision are closely defined by the House.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

I would expect the right hon. Gentleman to know what he is talking about if he refers to something. I simply asked those questions for clarification. If I manage to catch your eye, Mr. McWilliam, I shall say a few words myself on the matter.

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

In the interests of time, because I do know what I am talking about, I did not want to detain the Committee unnecessarily by going through something about which I thought that other hon. Members, and in particular Front-Bench spokesmen, would have some knowledge.

I strongly support the measure. It is sensible that we regularise the tax position on moneys that are made available to MPs. Given the amount of European legislation that interacts with United Kingdom legislation, it is right and proper that we are able to go to Brussels to talk to the Commission and Members of the European Parliament, and to visit other European Union countries in order to foster important relationships that will be to the benefit of those who send us to this House.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

I should like to ask the Minister not just the two questions that I asked the right hon. Member for Fylde but one other question. First, is the clause limited to the two visits that MPs are allowed?

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

You see, you should know what you are talking about.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

Three. Secondly, what is meant by ''and other representatives''? Thirdly, if an outside company pays for MPs to visit, say, Paris, are the costs tax-free—not just the costs for accommodation but those for travel, subsistence, hotels, entertainment and so on? It is wrong for such clauses not to be debated in detail because we need to know exactly what we are talking about, in contrast with the vague assertions of the right hon. Gentleman.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I rise with some trepidation to bring some proportion back to the debate. The matter was fully discussed by the House and all right hon. and hon. Members were able to participate in that debate.

Perhaps I should start by explaining briefly what the clause does. It simply updates the present tax exemption for travel expenses incurred by Members of Parliament to mirror the changes to the House of Commons scheme for reimbursing those costs. I have never claimed for such trips, but they are made in connection with our work as Members of Parliament. The trips are made are outside our travel warrants to and from our constituencies, but they none the less concern our constituencies, or the business of the House. They are limited by the House to a specific number a year.

The clause deals with the fact that the House of Commons scheme has recently been widened to take in travel to all European Union institutions and agencies, to national Parliaments of countries in the European Free Trade Area, and to the national Parliaments of European applicant countries. Only Croatia comes into that category from the summer of 2004. The clause updates section 294 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003.

Since 1992, the House of Commons has met the cost of a maximum of three visits a year by MPs to European institutions in EU member states and

candidate countries. The scheme originally covered trips to Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, visits to national Parliaments of any EU member states and visits to European candidate countries. During a recent debate, the House agreed to extend the existing rules to authorised payment of the cost of travel to all European Union institutions and agencies. Under the normal employment income tax rules, relief would be available to set against the payment if the MP's visit was on constituency business, but the scheme is administered by the Fees Office, which must be satisfied by the MP that the trip is directly connected with their work as a Member of Parliament in the House, or with their constituency.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

The Paymaster General is making a characteristically reasoned case. She said that she has never made such a claim for expenses. Can she confirm that that is because, as a member of the Government, the taxpayer pays for her to go to the Council of Ministers, where she has been a member of an important tax committee, and that, if it were not for that provision, members of the legislative branch of Government, as opposed to the Executive, would have no corresponding ability to have a multilateral perspective of such issues and to discuss matters with our counterparts in Europe? She is confirming that that is the difference, which is why we need the provision and she does not.

Will the Paymaster General help me with a problem of definition? Subsection (3) refers to

''a candidate or applicant country''.

I am mystified by the distinction that is made between ''candidate'' and ''applicant'' countries to the EU. Is an applicant country one that made a formal application, and does it become a candidate country when a treaty of accession has been signed but the ratification has not yet taken place? For example, is the Ukraine, which is sometimes loosely referred to as a possible future member, regarded as a candidate or applicant country?

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

Order. Interventions should be just that; that was a bit long for an intervention. I also think that hon. Members will find that Ukrainian people would prefer to be described as from ''Ukraine'', not ''the Ukraine'', which is a Russianism.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I can see that this debate is fraught with minor difficulties that I did not appreciate.

I can confirm that hon. Gentleman is quite correct: when Ministers travel on Government business, the overnight accommodation costs and certainly their travel expenses are met by the Government. He also made a valid point that this House, Members of this House and the business of this House benefit extensively from the arrangements. The visits might be to forums such as the Interparliamentary Union with other parliamentary representatives in the European countries and are in order to encourage dialogue and understanding. That is precisely what I presume that all Members of the House of Commons wanted to recognise in ensuring that Members were able to travel

on business if it was relevant. My understanding is that the country concerned must be in the process of accession to the European Union. The answer to the point about Ukraine is that it is not a recognised destination.

The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs tried to suggest that MPs would be swanning off for weekends in Europe that were not connected with their business. Frankly, trips that are made as a matter of personal choice will definitely not qualify and I am sure that, as guardians of the rules, the Fees Office will ensure that that is so.

On the question of accommodation, which was raised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), I understand that such costs are included. He asked what happens if a third party were to pay them. As I understand it, that would be declarable—for instance, it would be declarable under the Register of Members' Interests. I am not in a position to say whether it would then become taxable, as I am not a tax adviser. I think that it would depend on the circumstances. The House of Commons has set the provision very narrow. Therefore, although the number of member states and institutions that could be visited has been expanded, the budget has not and the same strict rules apply as before.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

Does the clause give exemption only to cash that is paid out by the Fees Office to Members of Parliament? My second simple point was: what do the words ''and other representatives'' mean?

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. I was coming to the question of other representatives. The provision is concerned not with the level of payments or the allowance but with ensuring that the same underlying tax rules apply to Westminster MPs and Ministers, and to their counterparts in the devolved Administrations—the ''other'' to which he referred.

We need to maintain some perspective. In most circumstances, Members of Parliament are treated for tax in the same way as other employees. The clause does not change that and nor should it. However, specific provisions exist to deal with one or two minor areas where the particular position of Members does not fit easily into the general tax framework. As I have said, there is no more money involved, because the budget for Members' visits to European institutions will remain the same. I presume that that is a matter for the House, Mr. McWilliam, as the budgets and arrangements are set by all Members through a vote on the Floor of the House.

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

Order. I can rule on that. It is a matter for the House of Commons Commission to compose resolutions for the House to decide on.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

If some hon. Members are not convinced of the efficacy of the system, I assume that they will not approach the Fees Office for reimbursement of expenses for travel connected with parliamentary duties. I am always exceedingly careful, as is the House of Commons as a whole, to ensure that any arrangements for Members of Parliament are

properly controlled, transparent and connected clearly, specifically and only with their duties as Members of Parliament.

I have noted the opposition and antagonism to the clause of the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs and for Torridge and West Devon. Although I may be unable to persuade them that it is reasonable, I hope that the rest of the Committee will feel reassured that the House has thoroughly investigated the issue and that the Inland Revenue has confirmed the tax treatment as it currently operates. There are still only three trips. They are still tightly controlled and they must be to the European Union, to its institutions or agencies, or to accession or applicant countries.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs can speak for himself, but I am sure that he shares my view that clauses such as this should not go through on the nod. Of course it is important that Members of Parliament should be able to travel on business to visit other Parliaments and to meet parliamentarians. Nevertheless, the clause needed probing, and I believe that we did that.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I thank you for your comments on the constitutional position, Mr. McWilliam. As I mentioned, the issue seemed to be greatly discussed on the Floor of the House, and a majority of our colleagues took a decision.

I congratulate the Paymaster General on presenting the case with great tact. It would be only honest to say that the system is open to abuse, but let us hope that our colleagues resist that temptation. I was prompted to say what I said by a Member from another party, who suggested to me that we could have a nice weekend in Prague by finding a good excuse to see a politician. It is obvious that the system is open to such abuse, although I am sure that the House officials will do their best to query such items duly. It is not my wish to oppose the clause further.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

The hon. Gentleman's final points are a matter for the Fees Office and the House. The clause provides only for the tax position to be maintained with the current scheme. I am sure that the House authorities will pay close attention to his points about reasons for travel. However, they do not relate to the clause, so it would be inappropriate for me to respond to them.

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

I thank the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs for his kind words, and hope that hon. Members understand that my comments were merely in response to the Minister's point about how the specific budget is obtained, not its tax treatment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83 - Giving through the self-assessment return

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

The Paymaster General brought the full weight of her 10 years' experience to bear on the previous clause, but I do not think that the full 10 years of anyone's experience is required for the next clause, with which, I hope, the majority of us agree in principle. However, a number of questions arise from it.

We welcome the clause in principle and think that gift aid is a step forward. It provides that self-assessment taxpayers can donate all or part of any self-assessment repayment from the Inland Revenue to a nominated charity. Under the clause, that will then qualify for gift aid. To qualify, charities must apply to be added to an Inland Revenue list. That is a summary of the scheme. I have seven questions for the Economic Secretary, and shall go through them as fast as I can, although I expect that he knows what most of them are.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

Not too fast.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

I will go at just the right speed and if the Economic Secretary thinks that I am going too fast, he should nod his head or make some gesture. What are the criteria for going on the list? I have not seen them spelled out anywhere. Who is policing the list? About 35,000 charities are on it, so it would be helpful to know what those criteria are.

There are a number of concerns about large, one-off repayments. Prudent taxpayers may want to be generous but may not necessarily want to give all of a large, one-off repayment to a charity, so they will set a limit. Can the Minister consider highlighting the possibility of a limit on the tax return? I have a copy of the guidance in the tax return that is being sent out, which has already been amended to take account of the clause. In order to save time, I shall not read the relevant passages out, but a very long way down, my concern is highlighted—perhaps that is too strong a word—by the paragraph that begins:

''Do you want to nominate a charity to receive all or part of your repayment?''

That must be flagged up. Can the Economic Secretary take a careful look at it? When he has done so, he may agree with me that it must be higher up in the text. We want people to give, but not more money than they might have intended. We do not want them to make a large, one-off payment when they wanted to give only part of it. The fact that the text is tucked away so low will play into the hands of those who have advisers, who will certainly recommend a limit as a matter of course, whereas those who are unadvised and are using self-assessment returns will not.

There is the important question of mistakes. When, as inevitably happens from time to time, a repayment award is made in error—even the Inland Revenue makes occasional mistakes—that money presumably goes to the charity, and the error is discovered. What happens then? I understand that the intention is that the Inland Revenue will claw that money back from the charity, which, in certain circumstances and with certain charities, will be difficult. That raises a number of questions. How in practice will that be accomplished by all 35,000 charities? Are those

charities vetted to get on the list of those that have the financial capacity to make repayments that have been made in error?

Secondly, will the Inland Revenue assure us that it will not go back to the taxpayer for that money? Thirdly, in any case, will the taxpayer not need to be informed? If he is a higher rate payer, he will need to know so that he can claim higher rate gift aid tax relief. He must be told.

Fourthly, when the error is by a taxpayer, the Revenue will of course want to recover the money from them as it already does when money is paid to a nominee. In the case in question, the money is to a charity, and it might be asking a lot of a taxpayer to refund in those circumstances. I understand why the Revenue would want to enforce that, but I can see some problems ahead.

When I considered the issue of mistakes, I concluded that not all the angles of the clause had been thought through. I have raised several questions and I ask the Economic Secretary to consider them, even if he cannot answer them now.

I have a few more questions.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

Christ.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

The hon. Gentleman is shocked, but there are more points to be made.

Will the Economic Secretary explain why an election cannot be made under section 98 of the Finance Act 2002? Why can a repayment of gift aid relief not be carried back a year? I have not seen an explanation for that. Why is it restricted to self-assessment? The Government are reducing self-assessment; higher rate taxpayers are no longer automatically included, so would it not be logical to help charities by enabling those that regularly receive tax repayments to use the provision? They are the so-called R40 claims cases.

Incidentally, in a representation from the Chartered Institute of Taxation, it was pointed out to me that the Economic Secretary suggested that that was his intention when he introduced the provisions a couple of years ago. He said:

''I reassure him that the carry-back provision that we are discussing is available to all taxpayers. The self-assessment return is simply a convenient mechanism for claiming it; the Government and the Inland Revenue will make available alternative routes for those who do not receive self-assessment returns.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 June 2002; c. 402-403.]

It seems that the Government originally intended that provision, but that they are not now enacting it.

Finally, on the question of short returns, will those using the new short forms from April next year be eligible for the scheme? As far as I am aware, they are not currently. This is the second trial year of short returns. Why have they been omitted? Is it because of complexity? Is the Economic Secretary sure that they need to be omitted?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

As the hon. Gentleman says, the clause introduces a new facility on self-assessment returns to allow individuals to give all or a specified amount of

their tax repayment to charity. The taxpayer will specify to which charity the donation is to be made and they will be able to make a gift aid declaration on the return so that the donation can be worth even more to the charity. The taxpayer can also choose to remain anonymous and still make the donation under gift aid.

I welcome the welcome in principle for the clause from the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). I lost count of the precise number of questions that he asked, but I hope that I have not lost track of the points that he wanted answering. On the question of highlighting a possible limit, I will consider his points made and determine whether due and appropriate attention has been given to making taxpayers aware of it.

That was No. 1—no, in fact it was the hon. Gentleman's question No. 2, but to return to his first question, there are some 38,000 charities on the list and the number is increasing all the time. Charities have the opportunity to enter their names on it throughout the year, and it is regularly updated so that taxpayers can access the information. There are no criteria—there is a process. That is because, by asking charities to put themselves forward for inclusion we can offer taxpayers a single list from which to choose that does not exist anywhere else. If there were another suitable and comprehensive list, we would use it. All that the taxpayer has to enter on the return is the code for the charity. That should eliminate errors and confusion about which charity has been chosen to benefit from the repayments. The approach has allowed the Inland Revenue to develop a streamlined process. The charities signing up have simply to provide their bank account details, allowing donations to be paid directly into their accounts. Charities receive the tax repayments on gift aid donations made that way without having to make claims.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

Just to clarify that, is the policeman for the list the Charity Commission?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

That is not strictly true—it is an administrative list that does not bestow or signify any status. It is compiled and maintained by the Inland Revenue because no suitable list is held by any other body. It allows the Revenue to hold, at the charities' instigation, the information that is required to make the clause effective from the point of view of the Revenue and of the charities, and to make the matter as simple as possible for taxpayers.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about errors—in particular, those that the Inland Revenue might make. Where, because of a mistake by the Revenue, a repayment is sent in error to a charity, the Revenue will request return of the payment by the charity. The taxpayer will not need to take any action.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

Will the taxpayer be informed that he can claim higher rate gift aid relief?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I am dealing here with the error that the Inland Revenue might make in directing a payment to the wrong charity. That should not affect the taxpayer in any way.

I come to the question of why there cannot be a carry-back. The hon. Gentleman referred to the reforms in the Finance Act 2002. The provision that he referred to as section 98, allowing donations to be treated as having been made in the previous year, would not work in this situation. A donation needs to be made before the return for the previous year is filed. However, the donation of a repayment cannot be made until after the return is filed. The return generates the repayment and therefore the donation. At that point, a taxpayer cannot be certain of the precise amount of a repayment and cannot therefore claim the relief in that return.

He also asks about the new short return. As he knows, a pilot version of the short return has been issued to 400,000 people for the current tax payment year. He is right that it does not contain the facility for taxpayers to donate repayments to charity. That is because the form was built on the version that we used in the previous year during the much smaller pilot. I can confirm that the facility should be on the form for 2004-05 and we expect that that will be issued to 1.5 million taxpayers.

The measure offers a new, simple way for individuals to make donations to charity. Taxpayers will be prompted, in completing their returns, to consider charitable giving. They will also be encouraged to make use of gift aid. Charities should therefore benefit from more donations and from extra tax on donations that are gift-aided. Currently the amount is 28p in every pound donated.

I hope that members of the Committee will see the measure as the latest in a series that we have implemented to boost charitable giving—notably those in the 2000 package—that have proved to be a significant success for charities. In 1999-2000 about 43,000 charities claimed gift aid. In 2003-04 the number was about 56,000. In 2000-01, charities claimed £222 million in gift aid. Two years later, the sum was £506 million—nearly two and a half times the amount of tax relief topping up charity incomes. Charities see great potential in the new facility brought in under clause 83. There are about 3 million self-assessed repayments each year, totalling about £3 billion.

Finally, charities will receive the donations automatically through bank automated clearance system—BACS—transfer, and will receive tax repayments on any gift-aided donations without making any claims to the Inland Revenue. The system is very easy for charities. As I have explained, charities that are not yet on the list can be added throughout the year.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

On a point of order, Mr. McWilliam.

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman raises his point of order, I want to point out that there is a large group of amendments to schedule 15. Clause 84 gives effect to schedule 15 and specifies the start year. I suggest that if members of the Committee want

to make any points about the general principle of inheritance tax they should do it in the debate on clause 84, because by the time we have dealt with the group of amendments, we will have eaten into the time on schedule 15 and it will not be possible to have that debate. Does the hon. Gentleman still want to raise his point of order?

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

I do not. I thank you, Mr. McWilliam, for anticipating what I was going to say.Clause 84 Charge to income tax by reference to enjoyment of property previously owned

Clause 84 - Charge to income tax by reference to enjoyment of property previously owned

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I thought that it would be appropriate at the beginning of the debate to mention the points that you made about clause 84, Mr. McWilliam, which simply enables schedule 15 to take effect. I shall not discuss the details of the schedule, but set the scene of the Government's approach.

The provision implements one aspect of the anti-avoidance measures that we announced in the pre-Budget report last year, directed at avoidance involving the contrived use of trusts. We are concerned specifically with the range of schemes that allow wealthy taxpayers to give their assets away, or achieve the appearance of doing so, and so benefit from the inheritance tax exemption for lifetime gifts, while in reality retaining continuing enjoyment of and access to those assets, much as before.

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

Will the Paymaster General give way?

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I am happy to give way, but I do not intend to drift into discussion on schedule 15. I simply wanted to lay before the Committee the reasons for the Government's approach to the problem.

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

I am grateful. For the sake of our understanding of the Government's line on this matter, will the right hon. Lady define what she means by the word ''wealthy'', which she just used, and suggest the amount of assets that she believes have been protected by the mechanisms that she described?

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

Indeed. The right hon. Gentleman is, as always, using his experience as a most highly regarded Financial Secretary to anticipate the major points that I want to make in my brief opening remarks. I will deal with those points as I develop the argument.

As Committee members will be aware, avoidance on those lines has been a risk ever since inheritance tax was introduced in 1986. Successive Finance Acts have tried to keep inheritance tax avoidance under control by disapplying the normal rules in the case of gifts with reservations, and attempting to block loopholes revealed by attempts by tax planners to work around

the rules. This Government made the last effort on those lines as recently as the Report stage of what is now the Finance Act 2003. Despite those efforts, schemes to circumvent the ''gifts with reservations'' laws continued to multiply rapidly until December 2003. The schemes were increasingly contrived and were being marketed as packaged solutions that could be offered to people by their financial advisers.

We do not have a complete count of how many of those schemes have been executed. It is in the nature of things that the Inland Revenue gets to hear of such schemes—if ever—only when they become active, after the individual concerned dies and inheritance tax rules come into play. Since the pre-Budget report, however, it has been suggested that there are more than 30,000 clients for particular schemes that have had wide success most recently. Assuming that schemes involve assets of the order of £500,000 on average, which seems to be the consensus among their marketers, some tens of millions of pounds, or more, must be wrapped up in them. The Government are facing a substantial loss to the Exchequer.

Faced with such figures, the Committee will not be surprised to hear that the Government decided to take action. It is not enough to tackle new arrangements and future avoidance. The Government wanted to send a clear message that artificial avoidance of that kind is not acceptable. Those who devise and market such schemes, and the people who take advantage of them, need to understand that and not assume that avoidance is risk-free.

Such schemes have grown so rapidly because they have are regarded as a one-way bet. The essential point is that nothing really changes. For example, let us consider somebody who wants to ensure that the house that they live in is not part of their taxable estate, but they want to remain living there. They see their adviser, sign a series of papers and pay a substantial fee, even though there might be a relatively small amount of work in it. The client goes home, the paperwork is filed and the arrangements are designed to unscramble when the client dies and have no lasting effect. The only real effect is inheritance tax savings that can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds or more. Given that perception of risk and rewards, it is not surprising that people and advisers have found such schemes increasingly attractive. The clause gives notice that that is a false perception.

People who have used such schemes, or who contemplate others like them in future, are right to think that they will get any inheritance tax saving that their scheme is able to assure, but they are wrong to think that that protects them against any future tax charge. That is at the heart of the changes under schedule 15.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The Paymaster General has kindly given some figures. My maths may be slow, but will she quantify what lost tax the Government have assessed? What loss of inheritance tax yield per annum are the measures designed to recover?

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

Forgive my trying to put the matter delicately, but it is not possible to give an annual yield. That depends on the age of people when they enter the scheme, and how long they live, which are unpredictable factors. We are reliably informed by the market that 30,000 schemes have developed up to the December period. Billions of pounds of assets are wrapped up in those schemes, so over time hundreds of millions of pounds of inheritance tax will not be paid, and that is a substantial loss over a long period. Indeed, the figure could rise into billions of pounds.

The question posed for the Government about the clause concerns the challenge whereby gifts with reservations are being negated and the desire to ensure that wealth is appropriately taxed as the tax system requires it.

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

I want to concentrate on the figures. It is difficult to accept that, when the Treasury asked the Revenue for recommendations to deal with the schemes, a figure concerning the amount of tax that was at risk was not given with some accuracy. Perhaps I am wrong mathematically, but if there are 30,000 schemes at £500,000, that is £15 million of assets and, at 40 per cent. tax, £600 million. [Hon. Members: ''Billion.''] Is that the right amount? Perhaps we can have an answer.

If research was undertaken, will the Paymaster General explain the relationship between the high marginal rate of tax in inheritance tax and the incidence of the schemes? On the contrary, if we lowered the rate of tax and got away with exemptions, would that be another way of tackling the problem?

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

Before the consultation exercise, the publication of the clauses and the extremely revealing responses that were received, the potential loss of revenue has increased. I am referring to the Revenue's knowledge of the types of marketing schemes. What is provided for is when the asset continues to be enjoyed, as if owned, and that is what comes into the tax charge. Taxpayers then have the choice of whether they want to remain within the inheritance tax laws, and if they do, they can make an election to keep their scheme in place. If they do not come under exemptions in the proposals in the schedule, and they are not within the de minimis, which deals with a huge number of the processes—

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

Will the Paymaster General give way on that point?

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I will be happy to give way, but it is helpful if I am allowed to finish one point before I move on to the next. Otherwise, I shall lose my way and venture into discussing the schedule inadvertently.

The schedule provides for an either/or situation. It will either allow the inheritance tax rules to operate as they should without the contrived schemes, or if the scheme is used and the taxpayer does not want to unwind that scheme—or simply elects for it to disapply, which the schedule provides for—an assessment will be made each year of whether they have benefited from use of an unearned asset that

comes into taxable capacity, in exactly the same way as the benefit in kind legislation operates. In a nutshell, that is what is provided for in the measures.

Mr. Burnett rose—

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later. I have not forgotten him.

When we discuss the schedule, the right hon. Member for Fylde will see the fantastically complicated schemes that are currently in place. The Government have sought to create a simple mechanism that will allow people either to come out of the scheme or to allow it to run and take a charge on the assets elsewhere. We shall come to that when we discuss the schedule. I have not forgotten the right hon. Gentleman's point on wealth, and we shall come to that when I have dealt with the question from the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

I know that the Paymaster General is probably bringing her opening remarks to a close fairly soon, but I am sure that she would not want to mislead the Committee into believing that the de minimis limit is in any way generous. Notwithstanding the proposed Government amendment, we are talking about a de minimis limit—predicated at times 20 for a 5 per cent. return—of £100,000. The IHT threshold is considerably more than that. By using the income tax sledgehammer, we are going to catch people who are not even within the IHT limit. It is a deplorable piece of legislation that we shall debate.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that we will be debating it, but in the Government's view he is absolutely wrong to suggest that people who would normally be exempt will be caught by it under the normal rules of inheritance tax.

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

Order. I suggest that we do not pursue that point until we get to the schedule, because it arises specifically out of the schedule.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

Indeed, Mr. McWilliam. That is all I was going to say on the matter.

I would like to deal with the point following on from the questions of the right hon. Member for Fylde. When taxpayers engage in such planning, it leaves future taxpayers as a whole out of kilter. The Government wish to deal with that. To all appearances, the taxpayer has modest means, but they enjoy valuable future benefits, such as a rent-free home, valuable art and antiques, and access to a fund of financial assets if they feel the need, that their less-fortunate neighbours—that is, the vast majority—can get only by spending hard-earned, and taxed, income. The Government think that it is perfectly proper to have regard to that for income tax purposes looking forward. That is what we are proposing.

One of the issues that we will discuss extensively when we reach the schedule is whether it is retrospective. When we reach that point, I will explain to the Committee why the Government reject that proposition. Clearly, the charge starts from 2005-06 and there are choices that the taxpayer can make.

It is absolutely true that the Government have benefited from what, in polite circles, we would call a lively consultation process following the announcement of the principle in December. We have made it clear that we wanted to target schemes with the potential to cause serious lose of inheritance tax. The responses in the consultation were of significant benefit in realising that objective, not only because they revealed the extent of the problem—which was considerably wider than I, as a Minister, had appreciated—but because they resulted in some important points being made. The Government are responding to those in our amendments. With a provision of this nature, it is not surprising that interested parties have continued to come forward with points as they have seen the fine print of the legislation. The debate on a substantial number of amendments, both Opposition and Government, will give all those major points a fair airing and discussion.

As I said, the Government have been more than happy to take up points in Government amendments. I am happy that there is a significant degree of overlap between what we are proposing and some of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs and his colleagues.

We will debate each of those as we move to the schedule attached to the clause.In the meantime, with those opening remarks, I commend clause 84 to the Committee.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. We discussed inheritance tax for a short period in last year's Finance Bill. There was remarkable similarity of view between him and myself. What is fair about a tax that the rich can escape with impunity but that catches millions of people with modest means who may well be subject to the income tax charge and not even have the cash to pay it?

The clause does nothing to redress those problems. It is a short-term, measly, muddled, useless bit of legislation. Proposed changes to the rules on pre-owned assets will make people completely and unknowingly dishonest. They can fall foul of the legislation and be completely unaware of the fact. Say a daughter or son moves in with their parents, entirely altruistically, and cares for them, forsaking an opportunity to get on the property ladder, and spends money improving the property and refurbishing it. Of course, the daughter or son is saving the state thousands of pounds by looking after the parents, but they will probably fall into the charge to income tax, because they will, by operation of law, have an equitable interest in the property, and any sane, sensible and able lawyer will advise them of that fact after the effect.

The legislation catches all post-1986 transactions. We should not be in the business of passing retrospective legislation. Not only is the legislation repugnant because it is retrospective, but it is characterised by muddled drafting and confused

objectives. For example, why use an income tax measure to endeavour to correct the shortcomings of inheritance tax legislation? I have referred to the de minimis sum that I know Government amendment. No. 146 will increase to £5,000. However, as I said in an intervention, that will put into charge to income tax people who may well be under the IHT threshold. Will the income tax charge be levied on pre-owned assets that qualify for inheritance tax exemptions—for example, business assets and agricultural property? What will happen in small and medium-sized businesses—family farming partnerships or family businesses—where there are adjustments to capital accounts? What about the Boden principle and the Ralli principle? It is well known that young sons or daughters take on businesses and work for 20 years or so, having been told, ''This business will one day be yours.'' Will they face an income tax charge levied over 20 years? This is horrendous.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps more familiar with this than I am, but I thought that the prospective taxpayer could make an election, and that therefore they would not be forced into such a situation.

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

Order. We are now debating the schedule. We should not be doing so—we should be debating the clause. I made it clear that we can talk about the principles, but the detail is in the schedule.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

You are right. Mr. McWilliam, but I am trying to illustrate the point that, with the confusion and muddle of using income tax, there will be inadvertent liability to tax, and liability to tax where an individual should not be taxed on any principled application of this legislation. Many individuals in small and medium-sized businesses could innocently fall within the ambit of this tax. This legislation will give rise to a large increase in personnel in the capital taxes office and probably to an even larger increase in the valuation office.

There are confused definitions, for example with regard to intangible assets. Intangible property means any property other than chattels or interests in land.

John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the schedule again.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

I am grateful to you, Mr. McWilliam. There are confused definitions, and I will not talk in detail about them. Shared occupation is not dealt with properly, and it has always been a principle that for the owner even of a small equitable interest in property adequate consideration is given to his or her occupation or their use of the property and enjoyment of it.

This is flawed legislation. It is retrospective, and it is muddled and confused. That is why we should be spending days correcting it.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

We oppose the clause on principle. We feel that the Government are going about the objective that the Paymaster General described—of plugging what are identified as holes in the inheritance tax gifts through the reservation of benefits rules—the wrong

way. We think that the correct approach is to change the rules on IHT reservation of benefits and to prevent future gifts that avoid the rules from being made. That hits straight at the principle of retrospection. The Government have instead introduced a new tax on gifts that could apply to any relevant situation going back to 17 March 1986.

The measures are retrospective in their impact on elderly people, many of whom are too old to be able to do anything much about it. More particularly, there is the potential for a much wider range of unintended effect, to which the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon just referred, and there is scope for unfair and unreasonable impacts on people. Given the wide powers of regulations, there is also the opportunity to misuse in the future what would be put on the statute book now.

There is a wider point. It is an old bit of human nature to want to hand from one generation to another the family home, whether large or small. That is a natural and right thing for people to want to do. Every parent wants to do the best for their children. The problem arises because the enormous increase, or bubble, in house prices from Birmingham southwards, as opposed to other parts of the country, has created a huge distortion between IHT arrangements and house prices. It drags in—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee A

(except clauses 4, 5, 20, 28, 57 to 77, 86, 111 and 282 to 289, and schedules 1, 3, 11, 12, 21 and 37 to 39) - Clause 84 - Charge to income tax by reference to enjoyment of property previously owned

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I welcome you, Sir John, to the Chair for our deliberations this afternoon. This morning, I was making a point of principle about the clause, which is very much about the natural human desire to hand on property to children. Many of the problems that the clause addresses are caused by the bubble in house prices from Birmingham to the southern part of the country, which is a wider issue that needs to be considered.

The Government are either deliberately or in a somewhat blinkered manner ignoring some of the possible impacts of their proposals. I wish to focus on the opposition of the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group. Its basic concern about the provisions has to do with the practice, which has become necessary and widespread, of parents giving their children capital for a deposit to buy a house. Later, when the parents are old and one may be widowed, it becomes desirable that the children take in the widowed person and provide a granny flat. Even with the slightly improved exemptions provided in the Government's amendments, it is quite likely that the value of the granny flat will be £100,000 or more, and a situation could arise in which granny moves in and finds a tax bill. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but what people perceive is as important as what is intended, and the legislation ought not to result in such circumstances.

I would like to put on record the objections of the tax reform group. It is concerned that the invention of a new income tax charge will bring with it many potential disadvantages for people who are not well off. Tax returns and tax situations will become much more complex, more record keeping will be required and more literature will have to be read and understood.

Uncertainty as to the scope of the legislation will require non-taxpayers to gain tax knowledge in order to ensure that they are outside it. The tax reform group has been advised several times by Revenue officials

that it worries too much about people who are outside the tax net and that, as such people's incomes are too low, tax and contact with the Revenue should not be an issue for them. However, from its experience over several years of running clinics to help people—pensioners in particular—whose income may be only a few thousand pounds per year, it has learned that people's concerns as to whether they should be paying tax loom large in their minds.

The tax reform group makes the point that the potential annual charge under the proposals will be seen in the press and elsewhere as concerning money given away by parents or people who are related to the main residents, and that that is likely to generate fear among those who have given away things in the past or who are thinking of doing so in the future. It is clear that extra Revenue resources will be required to reassure people and explain the implications of the legislation. The tax reform group is particularly concerned that an evaluation of the scope of the charge may require knowledge of family transactions dating back a long time. The provisions require detailed record keeping for the future, which will be potentially inclusive of normal family arrangements.

The provisions could create all sorts of unintended effects. People who have given away assets or cash to their children, perhaps many years ago, and fallen on less favourable times could find themselves subject to an income tax charge if helped by their children in their later years. There is a multitude of arrangements concerning the use of the family home in a long-term care scenario, and where family arrangements enable the older relative to remain in the community, they could be rendered impractical by an income tax charge. Gifts given over many years, for example, by grandparents to grandchildren could generate an income tax charge if related family members helped the grandparents in later life.

It would be unwise of the Paymaster General to dismiss those concerns. Ordinary citizens are extremely conscientious about their tax obligations. What Conservative Members dislike about the proposals and their details is that they could result in many unexpected circumstances. The de minimis limit ought to be similar in quantum to the nil rate band under inheritance tax, which has already been raised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). If the limit were lower, as the Government propose, all the bureaucracy, intrusion, arbitrary results and worry that are envisaged could come to pass. The basis of the de minimis limit should be clear to a typical pensioner; we should not have a computational de minimis where a person has to collect all the facts, do the sums and see whether the result is less than the set figures. All that would achieve is an increase in staff and in fees paid to advisers.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he objects to the fine print of the clause, or that he and his party object to the principle that it embodies?

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I think that I made it clear before we retired for lunch that we object to the principle of retrospective taxation. I am now trying to spell out why the provisions, which the Paymaster General explained are aimed at the better-off, are a cause for worry to all sorts of ordinary citizens. There are two separate aspects, but I made it clear up front that we object to the retrospective nature of the provisions. If this is a hole that needs to be plugged, it should properly be plugged by amending the IHT legislation rather than by the retrospective impact of what is being proposed.

A general and worthwhile point is that the potential impact of so much of what gets done is not thought through. I am about to speak about the other end of the scale—historic homes—but I thought it appropriate to mention that it was the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group that voiced the strongest objections. As the Paymaster General will say, the provisions were not intended to impact on those on lower incomes at all, but they may do and that is a concern.

The arrangements present major problems for historic houses and their contents, where, for bona fide reasons, the owners cannot comply with the more demanding standards to qualify for conditional exemption. The great majority of the electorate value our historic homes and their heritage and are, by and large, supportive of many families for whom it is quite a financial struggle to maintain them.

There are more than 1,800 recorded privately owned historic homes remaining in Britain. Some 350 are open to the public regularly and attract 15 million visitors each year. A further 200 provide some degree of public access less regularly. The Historic Houses Association recently conducted a survey that found that of the 350 major houses open to the public, 45 will be affected by the proposals. The largest recorded tax change relates to chattels and in quantum is in the order of £1 million per annum.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those 350 historic homes, and the other 200, are open to the public because of UK inheritance tax legislation? That is why the public can, on occasions, gain access to the 200 and can quite frequently gain access to the 350.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The point is not immediately relevant, but I do not agree. If the hon. Gentleman had read his literature, he would have discovered that even in 1800 virtually every historic house was open to any member of the public who cared to knock at the front door. The tradition of houses being open to the public, which I do not deny has been put on a commercial basis, is long established. It is a mistake to believe that the collective social interest in the historic homes of this country does not go back a very long time.

The point that I seek to make—this is slightly irrelevant—is that the arrangements that we are discussing cause problems and in various ways are likely to lead not to more houses being open, but if anything to the reverse. I am sure that hon. Members

of all parties would agree that we want to see our historic assets preserved and available to those who want to visit them.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

A number of my relatives visited many stately homes—usually after dark, it has to be said, and not by invitation.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier the onerous conditions. Let us consider the life of a truly great parliamentarian, one who is still respected and revered in many parts of this building: Tom Driberg. When he wanted to leave his house at Bradwell-juxta-Mare to the nation, he had to come up with half the money, which was £500,000. He could not do that. Today's papers tell us that Lord Hesketh—I was going to say that he was an equally distinguished parliamentarian, but I would not normally compare Tom Driberg to Lord Hesketh—is selling his house because he is unwilling to allow any public access. It is one of the most beautiful stately homes in Northamptonshire, and, whereas his father and grandfather married rich Americans and saved it, he is now selling it and it could be bought by a Russian. Does the hon. Gentleman really want that?

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interesting observation. I am disappointed to hear his racial prejudice against Russians. I hope that whoever buys the house will do the right thing and open it to the public.

There needs to be a fair trade-off in such matters. I do not know the detailed circumstances of Lord Hesketh's case, but one of the things that really worries me is that a human reaction to many of the proposals is to say, ''Forget it. We'll cash in the chips and go somewhere else.'' Whatever the fiscal proposals are, they must go with the grain of things, and not against it.

Of the 350 great houses, 45 will be affected by the proposals. At least 150 of the second-tier historic homes, many of which contain historic collections, will be hit. The proposals would make it difficult to fulfil the recently increased qualifications for conditional exemption. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Finance Act 1998 made it more difficult to qualify for conditional exemption.

I want to read out one or two quotations. The hon. Gentleman may not have much sympathy with them, but I think that they are realistic. The owner of the home of an eminent Victorian statesman and political figure said:

''We shall not be able to afford the 5 per cent. on chattels and since the whole object is to keep them in this Grade 1 listed building, we shall have to quit the house which will be unoccupied for at least some years. The house is listed Grade 1 because of its association with''

the famous Victorian politician and statesman. The owner continues:

''If the house is vacated, an additional caretaker and security will need to be employed. Such people would however be unable to personally escort individuals and parties . . . The rent for the trusts was fixed after taking careful legal advice and a retrospective rule would therefore seem totally unfair. Income tax is paid by

both trusts on the rent. If the house is vacated, all the many charity events and functions we hold in the house, garden and field will come to an end.''

Another house of major importance and political significance has been owned by the same family for some 700 years. The owner states:

''My efforts to rescue and restore this property for the benefit of the nation and future generations could come to nothing. We could not possibly afford the extra tax charges. My son, in Government service, could not move in, the house would be abandoned, the business would suffer and we might have to contemplate selling the entire property.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Was that Lord Rothschild?

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Closer to home, I think.

I have another quotation regarding an open house in the midlands:

''The owner will have to move out as there is no other suitable place to house the chattels. This will reduce public access. It is not possible to fund the proposed increase in the tax charge.''

Another smaller property, not regularly open, but important, has been rescued and restored by its current owners, who say:

''The new measures pose a real body blow. In a nutshell, they will make it impossible to hand over our life's work down to our children, never mind our wealth which is inconsiderable. We have laboured long and hard over the last 25 years to save this house and park from dereliction. The sleepless nights and years without holidays would not count against CGT. As it looks at the moment we shall be able to afford neither to stay nor to sell. What a prospect.''

It is easy to make cheap comments, but hon. Members will recollect that in the early days of the current Government surveys were commissioned to determine whether people cared about cool Britannia, and they found that people were not interested in that at all; they were interested in our heritage. It is absolutely fundamental—and I hope the Paymaster General will have something to say about this—that the arrangements do not damage the prospects of people who are often almost excessively motivated to look after their houses and contents for the next generation. There is huge public support for that process. I am well aware of situations where these arrangements will create problems for those who do not meet the criteria for exemption and have problems with chattels.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I think that the hon. Gentleman said there are approximately 1,850 historic homes.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Approximately 1,800.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Some 550 of those are fully or partially open. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the other 1,300—or 1,250—that are not currently open are more or less likely to become open to the public if the legislation is introduced?

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The point I was trying to make is that the net effect will be that those homes are less likely to open to the public. It is now such a nightmare to get the arrangements right tax-wise that the better options are to shut the property up and move out or to sell it. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on my real concern: the net effect will be that historic houses will be less open and less maintained.

Later, I hope, the shadow Paymaster General will tell us that the Government are interested in sorting out all those problems.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Not the shadow Paymaster General.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Sorry, I mean the genuine Paymaster General.

Our basic principle is that the proposals are unfair and unreasonable because of the extent of retrospection, which could fall on many people. Many taxpayers took what were entirely lawful steps to mitigate the inheritance tax liabilities on their properties—in some cases, nearly 20 years ago. They could find themselves worse off than if they had taken no action at all. One leading QC has made the point that the measures are unprecedented in their retrospective impact. To a large extent that is recognised in the concession of the 1986 start date.

The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners said in its response to the measures:

''The proposals . . . cover existing structures. These may not be easily unwound or indeed possible to dismantle at all. In many cases the parties concerned may not be wealthy or indeed higher rate taxpayers and will not be able to afford to pay an open market rent''.

The taxpayer should be entitled to organise their affairs in accordance with current law and with a reasonable degree of certainty.

The Government will say that the legislation is not retrospective but retroactive because the income tax charge will not have an effect until next year—it is no doubt intended for introduction after the next general election so that many people who are hit will not feel it before the election—and that taxpayers have the opportunity to dismantle the arrangements before then or accept that they will be caught by the provisions.

It will not, however, be possible for many to dismantle the arrangements. They might include trusts involving minors, or the dismantling could trigger other consequential tax charges. Many taxpayers who accept that they are caught by the provisions, or decide to elect and thereby escape the proposed income tax charge, will end up worse off than if they had taken no action at all for one or more of the following reasons: they may have incurred professional fees, or they will have accepted other tax charges to mitigate the IHT charge and may be uninsurable as asset values have increased considerably in the meantime and other tax planning strategies, which might have been pursued, are no longer feasible.

Considering the detail relevant to the principle, the proposals are hastily contrived and not thoroughly thought through. They are based on the briefest of consultation documents and one of the shortest consultation periods. The income tax charge will be difficult and costly to administer and collect, requiring regular valuations. We question how cost-effective the measure will be. Cases will arise in which the subsequent use of an asset is never foreseen or intended and a tax charge might result.

The summary of responses to the consultation document was a misleading whitewash, it included only a small number of the 192 replies and was worded

to slide over some of the controversial aspects of the proposals. The tax consultant to the Institute of Chartered Accountants said that it had found many problems in the proposed legislation already, that the proposals are riddled with holes and should be withdrawn for redrafting, and that some of the problems are due to unforeseen circumstances, some are technical and some are just wrong. It cites the example of parents giving a child money with which to set up a business. Years later, after prospering, the child might buy the parents a house and an income tax charge could arise. There could be a double taxation problem if the child gave money to the parents who then bought a house and died, because the estate might also pay inheritance tax.

We have tabled 42 amendments to the schedule after widespread consultation with legal specialists to address the specific problems. I am pleased to see that the Government have tabled 40 amendments, some of which address in whole or in part the issues that we have raised in our amendments, but in no way do they fully address all the issues. We object to a charge remaining retrospective on elderly people who may no longer be able to finance changes or to sort themselves out.

If I had an historic home and was caught by the provisions, my reaction would be to squat under Waterloo bridge and let the state sort me out because, clearly, it is only sensible for anyone affected to get out of the house fast if they have an emotional commitment to preserving the property for future generations.

We welcome the Government's broadening of the exemptions and some of the improvements in the provisions for election under transitional arrangements, but we remain concerned about the principles that the measures introduce.

My perception is that this is the start of a major Labour Government stealth tax offensive in the area of inheritance tax. I hope that they will be unable to pursue it beyond the next general election, but I am mindful that a subtle offensive on stamp duty revenues has increased them from £2.5 billion to £10 billion. The Paymaster General will be aware that the present standard practice is for spouses and partners each to make bequests to their children up to the value of the inheritance tax exemption. When the first parent dies, the cash may not be available to pay the bequests and the assets are locked into the house. The children must wait for the second parent to die, and the house is then sold and they get the two bites. There seem to be many ways within the broad regulation powers, if the provision is enacted, to adapt it to impose a tax charge on such situations, which the law as proposed does not. I am concerned to see a route for future Governments of socialist persuasion to widen the initial provisions in the Bill.

I end by saying that I believe that the Government are making an error of political judgment. I return to what I said earlier: people's basic motivation to pass on their house, large or small, to their children is a

deeply embedded and worthy aspect of our culture. Measures that make that financially impossible and introduce all sorts of problems and reporting requirements that can penetrate throughout society are politically ill-conceived. We shall vote against the measure. When we debate the details, our object—given that we do not have the power to defeat the measure—will be to mitigate its effects as far as possible. The issue that it is designed to attack would be more properly attacked by addressing the specific inheritance tax law problems.

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

With the forbearance of the Committee, I will outline some fundamental issues about inheritance tax that are raised by clause 84. The Bill introduces another patch for a broken tax. Through the schedule, it attempts to seal up a hole through which people have passed, almost with the encouragement of successive Governments, since capital transfer tax became inheritance tax. The Government of the day should not be surprised that people have taken perfectly legal means to step round the tax.

Many of the reasons that have motivated them to do that have been put on record by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). I suspect that when they reply to the debate, the Government will—as my hon. Friend, in presenting his proper objections to the clause, and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, who spoke earlier on behalf of the Liberal party, did—step away from facing the fundamental question of why we have inheritance tax. Is it the right tax? Is it constructed properly, in which case the clause might not be necessary?

The Paymaster General was kind enough to respond to my question about the level of assets that were protected by the mechanisms that are the subject of schedule 15. She said that up to £15 billion of assets might be sheltered. The inability of inheritance tax, as now constructed, to get a hand on those assets is clearly a threat to revenue. One cannot ignore that fact.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I am not saying that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's delineation of the problems, but as he is setting out his stall in that way, does he agree that those problems stem from the fact that in 1986 the Conservative Government introduced inheritance tax, reversing capital transfer tax, which had been brought in by the Labour Government in 1970? Capital transfer tax replaced the previous regime of inheritance tax, which was extremely similar to the one introduced in 1986.

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

I do not want to have a long discourse on who is to blame, but I acknowledge that sequential changes to the law have brought us to the position that we are in now. In philosophical terms, however, we should go back to the beginning of the process—estate duty itself. I think that it raises a fundamental issue. Before we had the range of taxes that we have today, the only way to get at people's rolled-up income was to

tax them at the point of their death. Suddenly the income crystallised out, and there was a sum of money available to be taxed.

The world has moved on, as table T1.2 of the Inland Revenue statistics lays out in considerable detail. It lists where all the money in our tax system comes from. For example, while inheritance tax yielded £2.5 billion for the financial year 2003-04, income tax dwarfed it with £115, 220 million—or £115 billion. That puts inheritance tax into context.

I can understand why the Treasury might wish to protect its interests, given the way that the tax is constructed. A further visit to the Inland Revenue website that deals with inheritance and capital transfer tax reveals a list, for those who wish to know how to circumnavigate the tax, of all the ways in which that can be done, including transfers between husbands and wives. As we will see in schedule 15, if a range of assets is made available to a third party, they will be subject to that schedule—but if they are passed on to a person's wife, she can carry on using his house with no charge, because that is the way the law is. The Government have not sought to challenge that.

The Inland Revenue website helpfully lists transfers to national bodies, charities, political parties, various forms of lifetime gifts, wedding gifts, reversionary interests, certain securities held by the UK Government, farms, and so on. There are various ways legitimately to avoid paying this tax. In this clause and in schedule 15, however, the Inland Revenue has picked out for special treatment one method in a long list of methods of avoiding inheritance tax.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

May I tempt the right hon. Gentleman into saying whether he believes that the solution to the endemic problems that he is rightly picking up is to scrap the tax completely—or is he suggesting a more fundamental reform of it?

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

I am on record as saying that this tax is past its sell-by date, but I am aware that if anybody goes down that route, they have to answer the question about where else they would get the £2.5 billion from. It would be wrong for somebody who has sat on the Government Benches, and who has faced the real-world problems faced by any Minister dealing with taxes, not to ask how, when the Government of the day have set out their stall to spend money, they might raise the revenue. I do not dodge that issue; indeed, I have reached some conclusions about it.

People can look through the various tables provided by the Inland Revenue and get, in excruciating detail, the number of estates and the amounts of money that are subject to the existing range of reliefs and exemptions. I make my point with some emphasis, because if there are legally available ways to avoid a tax, we cannot blame people for using them.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech, but most of it is quite wide of the clause. We are not debating whether there should be an inheritance tax, nor, if we do or do not have one, what alternative form it should take. We are debating clause 84. Some of the other things that the right hon. Gentleman has been discussing will be properly dealt

with under schedule 15, which we will come to shortly. There are a huge number of amendments to that schedule, and there will be sufficient opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to make his points. I would prefer not to have a debate on schedule 15 during the debate on clause 84.

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

I am always grateful for guidance from the Chair, but I was trying to suggest why I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, and why clause 84 would not command my support. The clause introduces a new variation on the rules of inheritance tax. I wanted to make clear to the Committee my views on the tax that underpins schedule 15 and the content of the clause.

I did not seek to deal in detail with any of the aspects of schedule 15, Sir John, because your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. McWilliam, made it clear that he did not wish hon. Members who spoke at this stage to go inch by inch through what was to come. I am sorry if I have, in your judgment, trespassed. In justifying my position on the clause, I was merely picking up on many of the points that my hon. Friend made.

Let me try to draw together my thoughts on the clause. The present structure of inheritance tax is not right. That tax should be re-examined to make schedule 15, and therefore clause 84, unnecessary. If it does nothing else, the Treasury should carefully study whether a tax without schedule 15, the implications of clause 84 and the many and associated exemptions to inheritance tax, but with a lower marginal rate, might be an alternative way to do things if we are to have a tax regime that taxes the capital that people have accumulated over time.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, some people—the truly wealthy—have very large estates. However, this clause will impact on those who have acquired a degree of wealth not by anything that they have done but by virtue of the fact that their principal asset—their home—has substantially increased in value as a result of its location and other factors that we are familiar with. In the light of what my hon. Friend said—that there is a natural desire for one generation to pass its wealth on to the next generation—it is unsurprising that people should use the available mechanisms to step around obstacles.

I will not go through the representations sent to Committee members by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland because that would take too long, but its two-page briefing makes it clear that much unfairness will be visited upon potential inheritance taxpayers in the future—particularly by virtue of the retrospective element of this clause, as my hon. Friend said. That it is possible, under the terms that we will debate, to step away from retrospection simply by an election is a novel introduction into the tax system. That is a sort of retrospective side-step; it is a dodge and a fix, and it should not exist.

In my humble judgment, the time has come to re-examine inheritance tax. We do not need complexity, which is what we have in clause 84 and the schedule that goes with it. We should reconsider this matter.

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I shall briefly answer the points that have been made about the clause, but I will leave aside those that touch on the schedule, such as retrospection, until we debate those subjects.

It is important to remind Committee members that the schedule is needed only because people have made contrived arrangements to avoid inheritance tax. The Government want to stop that. Many points made in the debate—particularly by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs—were criticisms of inheritance tax in general. He was advancing the case for not having inheritance tax at all, and many of the rules that he referred to are the current rules for that tax.

I want to deal with the red herrings now, so that we can get beyond them. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon suggested that a daughter who moves in with her parents in order to care for them has an interest in that house, and that she will be caught by the schedule and the clause. That is wrong. If she has a share in the house, that is part of her estate and there will be no charge under the clause or the schedule.

As for the point that it is wrong in principle to use income tax to deal with the inheritance tax issue, as I have repeatedly said, schedule 15 is targeted on individuals who have arranged to enjoy valuable tax-free benefits as part of a scheme to avoid their inheritance tax liability. It is perfectly in order to subject those benefits to an income tax charge, particularly as that will deter a type of avoidance that has become widespread.

This morning, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Boden and Ralli principles, and he gave the example of a father and son working together on a farm. Again, that example was incorrect. The principles mean that if, for example, a son has worked for little or no reward on his father's farm, they should have regard to a part share of the farm. That is exactly how the rules operate. Each will have a share that is part of his estate, so no charge will arise under the clause or the schedule. The father has received full consideration, in the form of labour, for what he has given up. That example is another red herring, and would not be caught by the clause or the schedule.

It is simply not the case that there would be many unintended effects. I will deal with the relevant examples. The Government have built in significant safeguards to protect innocent transactions and to take out of the scope of the charge cases that present no real risk to the Exchequer. The de minimis limit is one of those safeguards.

The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said that the provisions would deal particularly harshly with elderly people who made the arrangements that we are talking about. We will have the opportunity to discuss that at greater length later, but I shall just say that people who have entered into the arrangements under schedule 15 have been well advised in any case—that is why they have taken up the packages. However, we have included a simple

escape mechanism in the form of the election, which is just a declaration. We will discuss that when we consider the schedule.

The hon. Gentleman said that the regulatory powers were too wide. The main point of the regulatory powers is to allow a further round of consultation before some of the operational detail is spelled out in secondary legislation. That is how the previous Government and this Government have proceeded with regard to guidance, consultation and secondary legislation, and we intend to go that way.

The hon. Gentleman says that it is natural to want to hand on the family home. I think that we need a reality check here. As we happily now live much longer, most people have established themselves in their own home by the time they are likely to inherit. The family home that they inherit is a store of value and is sold shortly after the inheritance. Tax is not imposed until an estate is worth more than £250,000, and frankly, wherever one lives, that is a lot of money.

The hon. Gentleman asked why we did not revise the rules on gifts with reservation. We have tried to deal with that problem twice, but it has encouraged more ingenious schemes, so we have sought to deal with the matter under another proposition.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

The Minister quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs as saying that it is the most natural thing in the world to want to hand on one's assets to one's family, and then said, ''I think that we need a reality check here.'' Is she saying that that is not a natural desire? What would she say to those who, even if they acquired a substantial asset for themselves, still had the issue of their grandchildren to consider? In the current property market, it is probably more difficult than ever before to get on to the ladder and one may need the family assets in order to do that. Would the Minister, in turn, like to take a reality check?

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. I am not disputing the fact that people have a desire to pass on inheritance. What I was trying to demonstrate to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs was that some of the extreme cases with which he sought to illustrate his point did not address the reality of what is happening. The threshold is already at £250,000, which is a substantial amount in anybody's terms. That is the point that I was making; I was not talking about whether people should pass on property. I will quote some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on what the response from the tax system should be. We had the spectre of granny flats, of taking away people's businesses and of infirm people not being able to return to their property. I was simply trying to explain that that is not the case. The exemptions would deal with such cases, as does the operation of inheritance tax now.

Of course I agree that it is regrettable that many people who will not be within the inheritance tax rules and so do not need to consider them, have real concerns that cause them aggravation and anxiety.

However, unfortunately, such anxieties seem largely driven by unfounded fears about inheritance tax—hence the point that I was trying to make. Those devising schemes seem to be encouraging those fears.

Let us park the red herrings and deal with those not caught in the schemes. The hon. Gentleman will see that there are exclusions that would ensure that low-income groups would not be affected by the clause.

The hon. Gentleman made the point that the clause would require knowledge of family matters going back many years. As he is probably aware, the Government have tabled an amendment, to be discussed later, that would align the record-keeping requirements with those that already exist under inheritance tax rules, so there is nothing huge and new in that area either. As I said, we will pick up the point about retrospection when we debate that.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con) rose—

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

If I may conclude this point, I will be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs quoted the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, and said that some people would be unable to unwind their arrangements. That is precisely why the Government have built the concept of election into the scheme. People can leave all their arrangements in place, and may or may not come into the charge depending on the value of the assets that they continue to use. Alternatively, they can make an election, which is binding, and which basically means that they are back within the inheritance tax rules, and it will all be sorted out at the appropriate time.

People will have the challenge of unwinding all the arrangements only if they want to do so to make other arrangements and to see whether they can get around these rules.

Mr. Flight rose—

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I give way first to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie).

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

A moment ago, the Paymaster General said that the arrangements for record keeping would be aligned with existing arrangements for inheritance tax. Does that mean that, despite the retrospection to 1986, no one will be required to keep records for more than seven years prior to a gift?

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

That is the subject of an amendment and of the debate about retrospection. I will reject the retrospection point. However, I will not try your patience, Sir John, by going into those debates. Record keeping is required to start at 1986 anyway under current inheritance tax rules. Any arrangements that people make now would involve records that they should keep for the purposes of inheritance tax.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Can the Paymaster General give a practical answer to a thought that has occurred to me from what she has just said? Let us imagine a situation

in which somebody has given a house that is worth £1 million—many houses are worth a great deal more than that.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

More than that?

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

You would be surprised. The owners might say, ''We can't unwind the arrangements. Legally, the house is owned by our children, so we opt to pay the inheritance tax bill.'' They then die, the house is worth £1 million and they have financial assets of, say, £100,000. I calculate that the inheritance tax bill would be about £350,000, but there is only £100,000 available to pay it, and the assets are legally owned by somebody else. Is the Paymaster General saying that there will be a large inheritance tax bill that is simply uncollectible because the assets are not there to pay it?

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

As I said in my opening remarks, the arrangements that people have made in these contrived schemes can be left in place, and the income tax charge will be operated if it is relevant. Alternatively, they can decide to opt back into the inheritance tax rules, which they have de facto negated, for the liability of the assets at the point at which they die. Those are the two options. Several later amendments deal with when the election is made, when a charge would and would not be triggered and valuations. Perhaps we could save that debate until those amendments are moved.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

If I understand it, opting for the inheritance tax liability does not unwind the legal changes that have occurred. One opts to pay inheritance tax as if the asset had not been transferred. I can think of many situations where, when the person dies, there are nowhere near enough assets in their estate, which is legally owned by that person, to pay the inheritance tax bill. What happens then?

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman is describing, there may, for instance, have been a gift with reservation. Regardless of value, how much of the estate is left to be subject to inheritance tax will vary. If there are no resources to pay the tax, then there are no resources. However, if a gift with reservation has been made, the rules would operate accordingly.

I want to turn to granny flats, to parents buying a house and to what I think is the red herring of historic homes. The hon. Gentleman asked what happens when parents give a child a business and years later the child dies. He asked whether the parents' house is caught. The seven-year rule addresses that point, and it would not be caught. On granny flats, Government amendment No. 142 inserts a new provision into paragraph 11 of schedule 15 to cover exactly that point.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming —

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

On the points that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs made about historic homes, he does not explain why the owners have not simply claimed the conditional exemption. If the houses are open to the public—there are various requirements involved—and if the chattels are shown, are of high quality in their own right, or are historically associated with the property, the relief is available. I am at a complete loss on his point that the provision would damage historic homes, as conditional exemption from inheritance tax is available.

The hon. Gentleman said that people would not be able to afford the 5 per cent. on the chattels. It would be an issue only if they do not elect to pay inheritance tax. If they elect to pay it, in due course, it opens a claim to the conditional exemption, so there is no need to vacate the house. Conditional exemption offers a route through inheritance tax.

The hon. Gentleman gave an example of an open house in the midlands. Again, I can see no reason why the owners must pay the income tax if they do not want to. The conditional exemption scheme within inheritance tax caters for historically associated chattels and the homes themselves, so his series of points about historic homes is a complete red herring, unless he has more information.

The final point that the hon. Gentleman made was that house price inflation is driving people to avoid inheritance tax. It certainly suits some—I do not hold that the hon. Gentleman is one—to play up the risk that the majority of us will pay inheritance tax. The truth is very different: 95 per cent. of estates do not pay inheritance tax. As the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) pointed out, the tax makes a valuable contribution to the Exchequer, and the need for it was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), an Opposition spokesperson, who said only last month that

''if it were possible to pass capital on through inheritance without any tax then that might create an efficient way of shifting money around that was in practice much less heavily taxed than his normal income''.

The real difference between us seems to be whether some people with well-paid advisers should be allowed to avoid tax and shift the burden on to the rest of us. The Government think that that is not fair, and I make no apologies for that. The inheritance tax rules are in place and we expect people to comply with them. We have introduced the clause and schedule to deal with the various contrived schemes that have been brought to our attention. The choice is the taxpayers': pay the inheritance tax as the law requires or elect to unwind the schemes and not pay it; or be subject, if relevant, to the income tax charge. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 6.

Schedule 15 - Charge to income tax on benefits received by former owner of property

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I beg to move amendment No. 34, in

schedule 15, page 341, line 8, leave out '17th March 1986' and insert '9th December 2003'.

[R] Relevant registered interest declared.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 35, in

schedule 15, page 341, line 17, leave out '17th March 1986' and insert '9th December 2003'.

No. 39, in

schedule 15, page 343, line 2, leave out '17th March 1986' and insert '9th December 2003'.

No. 41, in

schedule 15, page 343, line 10, leave out '17th March 1986' and insert '9th December 2003'.

No. 43, in

schedule 15, page 344, line 24, leave out '17th March 1986' and insert '9th December 2003'.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

All these amendments replace the effective date of 17 March 1986 with 9 December 2003 to counteract the retrospective nature of the proposals. The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group and others have given broad examples of the potential impact of retrospective legislation. People who have given away assets or cash to their children and have fewer resources behind them risk an income tax charge if they are helped in their final years by their children. The later Government amendments do not necessarily avoid that.

There are a multitude of arrangements surrounding the use of the family home, including granny flats, which enable older people to remain within the family community. Such arrangements could become liable to an income tax charge, and that must be wrong in principle. The provisions are so widely drawn that in

many cases it is impossible for a taxpayer to know whether they will apply to them. If a person had made a cash gift to his child in 1986, how could he possibly know whether cash used by the child 20 years later to buy a property for occupation by his elderly parents indirectly derived from the cash that was initially given?

The Paymaster General will be aware of the specific example in the representations made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. It states:

''Let us assume that someone gives his son £10,000. Seven years later the son buys a house for £50,000. Seven years after that the father, being elderly, moves into a granny annex at the house which is now worth £150,000. Under the current proposals, it appears that the father will be liable to the new income tax charge'',

and that includes the de minimis extensions. By making the new rules prospective, rather than retrospective, the possibility of such unfair situations would be removed. By removing the retrospective nature of the provisions we would necessarily not require the tracing provisions, which have attracted considerable criticism and which the Paymaster General has not satisfied me are adequately removed by some of the Government's amendments.

The Law Society uses the following example, asking us to assume

''a gift of a holiday cottage in 1987. The donee sold it in 1990 and used half of the proceeds to start a business, adding the other half to his quoted investment portfolio. In 2004 the original donee sells his business, liquidates his investment portfolio (to and from which there have been various additions and withdrawals in the meantime but which overall has grown significantly) and buys a large country house, allowing the original donor to occupy a cottage in its grounds; or buys a work of art at auction which he leaves with the original donor while he goes to work in an unstable part of the world. The donor will have no right to obtain information—if indeed it is still extant—which would enable him or anyone to assess how far, if at all, his original gift of the holiday cottage can be traced through into the value of the cottage . . . or of the work of art,''

as required under the provisions of the schedule. The Government have not introduced any amendments to change the effective date from March 1986, as my amendments propose, although I accept that certain Government amendments do broaden the reliefs and exemptions from the charge.

The Paymaster General will no doubt talk about the impact being retroactive rather than retrospective, but I remain of the view that the retrospective nature of the legislation as it falls on individuals is wrong and leaves uncertainty about all sorts of potential situations.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

The hon. Gentleman seeks to make two points about his amendments. The first is about retrospection. He claims that inheritance tax arrangements made in 1986 should be completely immune from any change anywhere else in the tax system. As he well knows, no taxpayer is ever provided with such reassurance. Taxpayers make plans for the use of their income in the knowledge that the tax system may change. Retrospective measures in tax law seek to make a charge on benefits that have already accrued, but the schedule does no such thing. The bringing into charge occurs from the 2005-06 tax year. Therefore, the benefits that accrue in that tax year will fall within the charge. If the legislation were

retrospective, it would backdate the charge to 1986 for accrued benefits over that entire period, but we do not seek to do that. I absolutely reject the hon. Gentleman's proposition that the proposals are retrospective. They start in 2005 and will assess the benefits at that point.

If the taxpayer does not wish to pay the income tax charge at that time, they make an election. The inheritance tax rules will be deemed to operate, and the property is theirs and will be dealt with at the point at which the estate comes into charge.

The hon. Gentleman's second point is that not only is the provision retrospective but it introduces unnecessary burdens on the individual, including outrageous requirements for record keeping, possibly going back to 1986. I believe that the Committee would agree that it is sensible and reasonable that the record-keeping obligations in this measure should be consistent with those of the inheritance tax system, because that is basically the option open to the taxpayer. That is why the Government have introduced a provision to ensure that the charge will not apply to gifts if seven years have elapsed without the donor enjoying the benefit.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about a father giving x amount some 20 years ago to a son, who invests a proportion of it and uses the rest for property. That is not how this measure operates within the rules on the seven years. Although it is right for the hon. Gentleman to press the Government on the point, I say to him that the provision is not retrospective. We do not seek to cast a charge back into preceding years, as retrospection would. Under the clause, an arrangement gives rise to future tax charges as a result of a change in the tax system that is provided for in schedule 15—no more, no less.

As we progress, hon. Members will see that there are many exceptions and many ways in which people will not be liable under any of the provisions in any of the schedules that we are discussing. Those who are liable have a clear choice between the inheritance tax or an income tax charge; the matter is in their hands.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs prettily read an example from the Law Society, of which I am a member, but did not say that the Law Society proposed two long amendments to address that issue which are not along the lines of the amendments that he tabled today?"

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

We will debate that under another group of amendments. Government amendment No. 137 specifically deals with that issue and takes care of the point that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs made about a father giving money to a son, with various transactions occurring after that.

In conclusion, Government amendment No. 137 means that if the gift was made more than seven years ago, it will not be chargeable. The amendment is designed to ensure the position referred to by the hon. Gentleman when he made the point about how far

back the record keeping must go, and it is reasonable for the Government to hold that position. The provision is not retrospective. It is about a future tax liability arising from the arrangements made by the taxpayer for their assets while they continue to enjoy them.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

First, we welcome the provision, as we will in due course welcome Government amendment No. 137, but the situation is not as simple as the Paymaster General has described it. If I understand the amendment, in particular situations of concern—for example, where parents give capital to children to buy a house, then, much later in life, return to live with them—it all depends on there being a seven-year period between the parent giving the money and coming back to enjoy the benefit.

Record keeping will be required to establish the position. One of our objections is with the record-keeping burdens imposed on hundreds of thousands of non-rich, ordinary people. Even though amendment No. 137 may ultimately remove the concerns raised by many hon. Members, it would not do so without record keeping to establish that there was a seven-year gap during which the original donor did not enjoy any benefit.

Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, who has left the Room, made an important contribution about the essence of, and the semantic debate about, the meaning of the word ''retrospective''. His point was that even the Inland Revenue website sets out the methods available to taxpayers to mitigate inheritance tax liabilities. The Paymaster General may have read the letter in The Times by Jeremy Woolf, QC, and she may even have seen his more substantial opinions backing up that letter. I think that, particularly in the overall context and practical consequences of inheritance tax, the issue is that the measures are retrospective on the individuals concerned, whatever clever semantics one wants to get up to.

Earlier, we touched on how the measures may not even bite, but the fact is that many people who made arrangements that were perfectly legal 18 years ago find that those are suddenly being overturned as they approach old age.

The Paymaster General earlier made what, I regret to say, I thought were ill-informed remarks about my making shallow comments about historic homes. I suggest that the Revenue work with the Historic Houses Association and plot through the perfectly genuine cases where people could not qualify for conditional relief. The Paymaster General made reference to chattels that were not sufficiently valuable to qualify. She should be aware that it is quite difficult to qualify for conditional relief. That relates to the principal point about retrospection.

With respect, the Paymaster General glossed over a major problem of families who have done their best to preserve a house and its collection and to hand it on, and who are not, otherwise, rich people. They have a motive that the Paymaster General may not approve

of, but they are going to find themselves either with a bill that they cannot afford to pay or having to sell the property and go to live somewhere else at the age of 75 or 80. That is not in the national interest.

The complexity produced by making the measures retrospective is still significant. Helpful though some of the Government amendments are, a great deal of investigation and evidence production is required to understand how they bite. We are still of the view that, in this territory, if one accepts that there is a big hole to be filled—which is itself debatable—the correct thing to do would be to fill it going forward.

In a sense, this problem is caused by a failure of Government to block holes in inheritance tax satisfactorily in the past. We are against what we view as, in practice, the retrospective elements, and we want to put the matter to the vote.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

The hon. Gentleman said that we should fill the gap going forward. That is precisely what schedule 15 does. It says, ''This is where it is and the benefits should be taxed''. I did not say that the hon. Gentleman had made shallow comments about historic homes. I would not dream of saying that.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The right hon. Lady used the term ''red herring''.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I did say that it was a red herring, because it is not connected with the issue. I have done a great deal of work on the question of conditional relief. Where people are liable to pay inheritance tax, but come to the Government and say, ''This house is of such importance to the nation that we should not have to pay inheritance tax, so that it can be kept for the nation'', other taxpayers are entitled to set conditions on the quality of the objects and the access to those homes and objects that we are paying to keep for the nation. We should be able to see them.

The point that I was making to the hon. Gentleman is that the conditional relief and exemption and the arrangements for historic homes are not touched by the proposal, unless he is saying that the owners of historic homes are engaged in contrived schemes over and above the conditional exemption. If he has some points to make on that, I would be pleased to hear them. When the Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, invest money—that is to say when they do not collect inheritance tax, in order to preserve a house or objects—the rest of the nation is entitled to view what they are investing in.

On record keeping and gifts, I have told the hon. Gentleman that Government amendment No. 137 deals with cases in which there is a seven-year gap. If the gift is large enough—we are talking about £100,000; this is also subject to one of the amendments—record keeping is required, but that is no different from the current situation. People have to keep that information now when they are transferring assets, if they are within the inheritance tax net. The hon. Gentleman may be trying to assert that these are new requirements for keeping information, but they are actually requirements that should already be being complied with. The Government have been very careful about that. We are trying to ensure compliance

with current rules. That is laudable. If the hon. Gentleman decides to put his amendment to the vote, I will have to ask my hon. Friends to oppose it.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The language used by the Paymaster General glosses over considerable problems. Meeting the requirements for conditional exemption for historic houses is extremely demanding. Which houses and collections meet a certain level of quality and which do not is a matter of judgment. Where she is mistaken in her perceptions is that the general view of the population of this country is that it is a good thing that families struggle to keep together historic homes and their collections. It would be generally viewed as extremely unfortunate if, for whatever reason, some bureaucrat decreed that the contents were not good enough to meet the target and the whole place was sold up as a result.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with the comment about some bureaucrat dreaming up standards. The Government took wide-ranging advice from heritage organisations, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and other organisations that invest a huge amount of time in preserving the national heritage. They advised the Revenue on the standards that should be applied to conditional exemption. The standards were not dreamt up; they were based on information from experts. They are not there to do down anybody who is preserving their house. We are talking about setting a standard that the nation agrees with.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

No matter how grand the bodies may be, what merits conditional exemption and what does not is still a subjective judgment. There is a practical issue: there are houses with collections that may not meet those standards, but which are none the less historic, and the overwhelming majority of citizens would think them worthy of holding together. It would pay the Paymaster General to have further discussions with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It will have some helpful comments to contribute on chattels.

The central point remains that the citizens perceive the situation in the following way: a range of possible routes to mitigate death duty liabilities are described on the Inland Revenue website, and there have been more sophisticated arrangements that the Inland Revenue has not challenged for nearly 20 years, even though it has been well aware of them because they have been in operation. It is a retrospective measure suddenly to come back and say, ''You may have done it 18 years ago, but hard luck, mate.'' That is not a correct way to proceed in plugging what the Government regard as avoidance loopholes.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 15.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in

schedule 15, page 341, line 11, after 'which', insert 'interest'.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 37, in

schedule 15, page 341, line 28, leave out first 'a' and insert 'the chargeable'.

No. 40, in

schedule 15, page 343, line 5, after 'which', insert 'interest'.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The amendments are intended to avoid ambiguity by clarifying the fact that where paragraphs 3 and 6 mention

''the proceeds of the disposal''

they refer to the proceeds of the disposal of the interest referred to earlier in the measure. Amendment No. 37 simply avoids ambiguity by clarifying the fact that the person in question is the chargeable person as defined earlier. I hope that the Minister will confirm on the record that that is the case, which may avoid any need for amendments to be made.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

Amendments Nos. 36 and 40 would slightly change the wording where a former owner has provided the funding in whole or in part for the acquisition of a property by someone else, and that property is then disposed of with the proceeds being reinvested in a further property. The amendments may intend that only the former owner's share of the predecessor property should be regarded as feeding through in to the successor property. If that is the case, I agree that that is the right approach, but I do not think that it needs to be spelt out as suggested in the amendment, because in those circumstances any charge on the former owner will apply only to the extent that the benefit that they ultimately receive is reasonably attributable to what originally fed into the process. Paragraphs 4 and 7 refer to reasonable attribution for the cases in paragraphs 3(2)(a)(ii) and 6(2)(a)(ii) precisely to recognise the issue that I believe the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs may have in mind. I am happy to put that clarification on the record, but I believe that his amendment is totally unnecessary.

Amendment No. 37 is a matter of taste. I understand why the Opposition believe that it might be an improvement, but it follows that the same change should be made in paragraph 6(4). Instead of starting to amend the Bill and leaving the job half done, it will be less confusing for our successors if we leave the provision as it is. It provides for the arrangements that the hon. Gentleman is seeking, whereas under his

amendment the two paragraphs would not reflect each other, which could cause problems with interpretation.

After that clarification, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment to a vote, but if he decides to do so I shall ask my hon. Friends to oppose it.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The Paymaster General has written into the record the clarification that I made it clear we were seeking through the amendments, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Flight: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in

schedule 15, page 341, line 33, leave out

'in pursuance of any legal obligation'.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 42, in

schedule 15, page 343, line 23, leave out

'in pursuance of any legal obligation'.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

These two amendments would erase two references to the phrase

''in pursuance of any legal obligation''.

We believe that they are important, and I hope that the Paymaster General will be able to write into the record a way of addressing the serious issue behind them.

Historically, many people have sought to avoid a gift with reservation by the voluntary payment of a full commercial consideration for their occupation, when they have no legal right to occupy. Restricting the available deduction to payments made in pursuance of a legal obligation will severely prejudice such individuals and ensure that, notwithstanding the fact that they will be legitimately outside the gift with reservation rules, they will be caught by the pre-owned asset rules. For example, there are instances of elderly relatives living in granny annexes with no formal tenancy agreement but who pay rent voluntarily to their relatives, often their children, who own the house. Under these provisions, such elderly relatives would be penalised with no deduction for their rent, and we seek confirmation from the Paymaster General that that problem needs to be addressed.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

The amendments would extend the range of payments made by someone who enjoys an asset that can be set off against the benefit that would otherwise be chargeable under the schedule. If I have understood correctly, the hon. Gentleman is concerned about some rather specialised transactions, in which valuable art and antiques are given away, in a formal sense, by the previous owner either to another family member or to a family trust, and are then immediately leased back. The hon. Gentleman is also concerned about the granny flat issue, which I will talk about in a minute.

There is a difficulty here: the property never actually moves. It may have been fixed to the wall—often in the same place, but certainly in the same house—for centuries. It is appealing to the former owner to

remove the property, and we are designing a trap to deal with that under the schedule. The owner removes from his estate the property that would be subject to inheritance tax, sometimes to the tune of millions of pounds, yet continues to enjoy the property in some way at a very modest outlay. That is the problem with the proposals put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

The issue for the tax authorities is that there is no market at all for the long-term rental of high-value art and antiques between parties at arm's length from each other that we can use to estimate what a realistic rent would be. The users of the scheme have been accustomed to strike what would politely be called an optimistic-looking deal, renting out highly desirable assets for rents of less—often much less—than 1 per cent. of their capital value.

If the Committee were looking for comparisons with other markets—this relates to the hon. Gentleman's point about the legal obligation—I would suggest the parallel of an equally valuable and desirable residential property. In that case, we would expect the yield to be in the order of 5 to 10 per cent. Under the schedule, we will be charging the benefit that arises in the circumstances, starting with a rental yield that will be specified in secondary legislation following a further round of consultations. The schedule provides, quite rightly, for a set-off if former owners are paying something for the benefit that they are getting, rather than getting it totally free. The hon. Gentleman simply used a different example.

The schedule says that the deduction is available only when the payments are made under a legal obligation. Put bluntly, that requirement is intended to stop any manipulation and ensure that there is reasonable symmetry between the tax positions of the two parties. If something reduces the taxable benefits in the hands of the payer, it should clearly be taxable in the hands of the payee as rent.

It has been said that various sorts of payments ought to qualify, but I have not yet heard any convincing reason for that, and there are excellent reasons why they should not. For example, it has been suggested in representations that costs such as insurance, security and cleaning should be deductible. However, those are just the costs that any lessee can expect to bear as part of their obligation. In return, the lessor has the property intact at the end of the lease. No tenant in a market situation expects to give their lessor or landlord less than comparative rental yield. More generally, we are talking about definitions and transactions between people connected with each other. If we do not have a clear objective standard, such as the one in the schedule, it is impossible to estimate what costs they might try to load against the benefit otherwise chargeable under the schedule.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a different case but, in our examples, we are trying to deal with the extremes, such as a case in which there was an elderly person in the ''granny flat''. In most cases, there will be no charge at all because it is likely to come within the de minimis rules. It is the example that I gave that we are trying to deal with. Where there is a charge, there

is no exclusion, because it is a valuable benefit that is being enjoyed, but that was not the point that the hon. Gentleman sought to make. He made a point about the modest arrangements with regard to the granny flat. It is open to the parties to make a formal agreement, or they can use elections.

In summary, if a benefit is to be charged because the asset has been transferred through the income tax mechanism, any costs that are deductible have to be on the basis of a legal obligation between the two parties, because the payment is taxable in someone's hands. In such cases, either the person is receiving the rent or, if the arrangement has been made, receiving the benefit for free, despite the fact that it is still a valuable asset and the income tax is triggered. Of course, in those circumstances, the taxpayer can make an election and return to the income tax rules as if they had made a gift with reservation, if that is what they chose.

In those circumstances, I ask the Committee to reject the hon. Gentleman's amendment. First, another area clearly needs to be dealt with, of which I have given an example. Secondly, if there needs to be an arrangement for payment it should be a legal obligation. Thirdly, if there are small sums, they will be within the exemption. Finally, if it is only a small contribution, such contributions are normally made in the day-to-day running of premises—as in the example of the granny flat—and therefore there is no case for deductions in the electricity bill, for example. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, or I shall ask my hon. Friends to oppose it should he press it to a Division.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The point is perfectly simple. The Government's intention is that, if a fair and appropriate rent is being paid for the assets, the Government's measures do not obtain. I am afraid this control-freak Government now require a legal document, which adds costs and, in many cases, such as the one I cited, unnecessary complexity.

I hoped that the Paymaster General would be able to address the practical situation. I am afraid that she is entirely wrong if she thinks that the Government's exemptions in the amendments to come are going to deal with lots of granny flat situations in future. If the housing price bubble continues at its present rate, they will certainly be unlikely to exclude them. It would be appropriate if the Paymaster General put on record that the legal obligation means, in essence, that it would be better if there were a clear legal document, but that the intent is that a fair rent is paid. Without that, the measure is overbearing. It is obviously a complete waste of time to put the matter to a vote, but it reconfirms the impression of the public that we have an overbearing Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I beg to move amendment No. 105, in

schedule 15, page 341, line 36, after 'person', insert

', less the appropriate part of any capital payment made to the owner of the relevant land in respect of the land by the chargeable person.'.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 106, in

schedule 15, page 343, line 25, after 'person', insert

'less the appropriate part of any capital payment made to the owner of the chattel in respect of the chattel by the chargeable person.'.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Estates groups and the Historic Houses Association have proposed that some provision be made in paragraphs 4(1) and 7(1) to cater for capital payments, such as lease premiums, to be included in the deduction for the calculation of benefit in kind. It is self-evident that that is right and fair. The amendment is essentially probing and requests that the Government introduce a proper mechanism for amortising lease premium payments, which is clearly required. I look forward to hearing how the Government intend to address the issue.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

The Government considered the same point during the consultation. The sale and leaseback arrangements are entered into only to remove assets from someone's chargeable estate—that is, to remove assets from inheritance tax. In some cases, it is attractive for tax reasons to make capital payments, too, as that further diminishes the taxable estate. In the most ingenious schemes, the arrangements are constructed, so that payments under the lease are tax deductible.

We concluded that it was not appropriate to cater for those particular variations of the sale and leaseback device. In any case, the amendments might have a wider impact because they do not link the capital payments to the occupation, or the use of the asset in question. They might well enable occupiers to reduce the impact of, or to avoid all together, the new provisions by the simple expedient of making gifts to the owners. For those reasons, I ask Committee members not to support the amendment.

The schedule deals with arrangements that individual taxpayers enter into to avoid paying their inheritance tax charge or liability. I do not see why we should give them a tax-deductible expense to achieve that through the leaseback arrangements. If they do not seek to avoid the inheritance tax charge, and they have the normal leaseback arrangements, provisions exist in the tax system to allow for deductible expenses. That is absolutely appropriate, and we defend that part of tax legislation. However, we should not allow people to avoid tax and give them tax deductions for having done so.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The Paymaster General's suspicions may or may not be genuine, but she will have left the Inland Revenue with the problem that where, for whatever reason, people are paying in one way or another fair market rental for assets enjoyed, capital payments, such as lease premiums, may be involved. There will be yet more complexity, and the revenue will have to sort it out. The amendment is probing, and points out that we will have a compounding of complexity and an issue not clearly resolved. The issue

will drag on and cause trouble, so good luck to the Paymaster General. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 118, in

schedule 15, page 341, line 43, leave out first 'relevant' and insert 'valuation'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 119 to 121, and 124 to 127.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Although we do not oppose the amendments, we do not feel that they fully address the issues that they are designed to address. The amendments are designed to refine the computational provisions for land and chattels to cater for cases in which property is disposed of at an undervalue; for example, a former owner intends to make a gift, but not one representing the full value of the property.

As the Paymaster General will be aware, the Law Society made representations that the provisions should allow clarity for gifts made in undervalue. The amendments would not address any of our relevant amendments, but are welcome as they give some relief, where a transfer is part sale and part gift, by providing a relief fraction to ensure that the person involved would not suffer the full charge if the sum price were paid for the transfer. We will come to our amendments later.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 119, in

schedule 15, page 341, line 45, at end insert

'or, where the disposal was a non-exempt sale, the appropriate proportion of that value'.

No. 120, in

schedule 15, page 342, line 4, after 'person' insert

'or, where the original disposal was a non-exempt sale, to the appropriate proportion of that property'.

No. 121, in

schedule 15, page 342, line 12, at end insert—

'(3A) The disposal by the chargeable person of an interest in land is a ''non-exempt sale'' if (although not an excluded transaction) it was a sale of his whole interest in the property for a consideration paid in money in sterling or any other currency; and, in relation to a non-exempt sale, ''the appropriate proportion'' is—

where—

MV-P is the value of the interest in land at the time of the sale;

P is the amount paid.'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I beg to move amendment No. 114, in

schedule 15, page 342, line 29, after second 'year', insert 'with vacant possession'.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 115, in

schedule 15, page 342, line 38, leave out 'only'.

No. 116, in

schedule 15, page 342, line 41, at end insert—

'(c) in any case where, since the transfer, the transferor of the relevant land has undertaken any works or expenditure deemed to have been undertaken or paid by the landlord or continues to meet any such costs, all such annual expenditure or the annual expenditure thereof may also be deducted'.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The amendments would deal with the basis of the valuation of the rental arrangement. At present, they are drafted to provide for gross rental only. We can see no reason why they should not include the more typical tenant repairing lease. For what it is worth, many of my constituents have written to me and made that specific point. As far as I am aware, the Government have not tabled any amendments to deal with that issue.

The drafting has been picked up from the Rating Act 1966. It is blatantly unfair that people, in cases where there are repairing leases, who have acted entirely properly and within the spirit of the law in paying the right rent and all the rest of it, should be undone as a result of the arrangements covering gross rental arrangements as opposed to typical tenant repairing leases.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

Schedule 15 would almost always have to provide the terms of a hypothetical landlord and tenant relationship, and estimate the rent that might be paid with no help from the facts on the ground. In recent cases where former owners sought to avoid inheritance tax, the new owners were known as ''straw men''—trustees of a trust created purely for the purposes of taking over the property and issuing an IOU for it. Having done that paperwork, the former owner goes home and carries on as before. If the insurance subsequently has to be paid or the drains get blocked, the former owner deals with that just as before. I do not suppose that they even consider sending a bill to the trustees, because they know that they would be wasting their time.

Given that, the Committee will not want to spend much time or use up much space in the statute book on hypothetical assumptions about how to tax those dealings. I understand the point behind amendment No. 114, and it is intended constructively, but I hope that it is unnecessary. The equivalent provisions in the code for employment income have been understood well enough to be applied without undue difficulty, and without strong reasons for doing so I am reluctant to accept an amendment that would bear on that existing understanding. Dealings are made clear in the code on employment income.

Amendment No. 115 would substantially complicate the legislation without achieving very much. The paragraph that it would amend explains how a hypothetical rent is to be estimated. It says that one should assume the sort of division of responsibility between landlord and tenant that one would expect to see in a real arm's-length situation. The landlord is willing to undertake the responsibilities that they normally undertake and the rental value cannot be adjusted downwards for the costs that they incur in doing so.

The paragraph allows rental values to be established as directly as possible from the arm's-length evidence, so saving compliance costs. That advantage is as worthwhile in this Bill as it is in the employment income code. The amendment makes it unclear how the hypothetical rent is calculated, and I do not see how it is likely to benefit anyone at all.

The concerns behind amendment No. 116 are that the former owner might be taxed on a benefit that assumes that someone else is meeting the costs that they are in fact meeting themselves. It would graft a deduction for actual expenses borne by the former owner on to what is otherwise a hypothetical calculation about a hypothetical tenancy. Not surprisingly, neither my officials nor I think that the amendment works on a technical level. An effective response would require vastly more provision than in the amendment, specifying exactly what expenses the former owner can be expected to bear, how expenses of a capital nature should be dealt with and how they should be split if they partly belong to the landlord and partly to the tenant.

The amendment is complicated and it seeks to respond to a situation as if it was a normal tenant-landlord situation when it is not. I remind the Committee that we are dealing with an avoidance mechanism and that the arrangements are almost entirely artificial. Taking that into account, it is obvious that our approach is necessary and proportionate. I am not attracted to the proposition whereby somebody transfers their property, continues to enjoy it and seeks to get taxable deductions for it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my explanation, but if he wishes to put his amendment to the vote, I will ask my hon. Friends to oppose it.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The issue is simple and straightforward, and I am disappointed that the Paymaster General used clever-cuts language to duck it. There are many bona fide situations—not clever-cuts schemes—where people have transferred the property, agreed a fair rental, and not sought to avoid the gifts with reservation arrangements. However, as she would find if she did her research, there are hundreds of thousands of rental arrangements with typical tenant repairing leases. There are generally tenant repairing leases on historic or old houses.

The relevant part of schedule 15 refers to a payment being accepted as fair only where it is a gross rental payment. That is grossly unfair and needs to be dealt with. I do not understand why the Minister cannot say something to address that. If she does not like our amendments—I do not deny that they may raise other issues—there is a simple answer: the Inland Revenue should consider and appraise tenant repairing leases as equivalent to a gross lease. That is the fair, honest and decent response.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is losing sight of the specific, narrow issues with which the clause and schedule deal. I have said something about the benefits in kind legislation, which operates well elsewhere in the tax system without the complications that he identifies. Where there is a tax

charge, that charge will be followed in this provision. The simple way out is to make the election and put the asset back into the inheritance tax net, so none of the complicated arrangements would even need to be addressed.

If the taxpayer does want to be subject to an income tax charge in those circumstances, under the long-standing rules that exist in the benefits in kind legislation, their option is to make an election and return to the inheritance tax rules, not to add further complication to the tax code by trying to mediate a contrived scheme. That is a reasonable proposition and a reasonable set of choices to put before taxpayers. They do not have to unwind schemes; they simply have to make an election that becomes effective at the point that the estate comes into the inheritance tax charge.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am upset by the inconsiderate and authoritarian approach being taken by the Minister, which is untypical of her. These are not contrived arrangements. They are proper arrangements made by people who have sought not to avoid the benefits in kind arrangements. This is about people who have given the property and are paying a proper rent. However, whether a proper fair market rent is gross or established with a repairing lease, both situations are equivalent. Where a tenant has the cost of repairs on a repairing lease, the net rent is less. If there is a gross lease, the owner has the cost of repairs. It is a net-net similar situation, not a contrivance. In most cases, the typical arrangement is a tenant repairing lease. It is completely unreasonable not to deal with that situation.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I do not wish to upset or goad the hon. Gentleman. If there is a straightforward relationship between a landlord and a tenant that is not within these schemes, it is not caught by the schedule, and therefore the schedule does not need to address it. We are seeking to address only situations where property is owned and it is transferred to another owner in order to avoid an eventual inheritance tax charge, yet the individual carries on enjoying that asset. If they have made a different arrangement, and they are in a straightforward landlord and tenant relationship, the normal rules will apply and this schedule will not apply.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am afraid that the Paymaster General has now confused me completely. We are self-evidently talking about a situation where the owners of a house have given the property to their children, but they continue living there and pay a fair market rent. It always used to be the principle that if people did that, that was fair dice. Is she saying that if that fair market rent is on the basis of a tenant's repairing lease then that is fine? If so, I have no quarrel and I am sorry that I have not been put out of my agony earlier. However, my reading of schedule 15 is that it has to be a gross rent and that if it is a tenant repairing lease, the idea that the whole existing legal situation is perfectly okay is thrown out of the window. That is nonsensical.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

There appears to be difficulty in appreciating this point. We are not aware of there being thousands of cases for the Inland Revenue, and I cannot see why the result of this is unfair. If there are normal arrangements between a landlord and a tenant in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman refers to, that will be under a lease and things will be arranged—there will be payments, agreements and obligations. I do not see how the rules give rise to a problem for him. They may have gifted the property away, but they are then making a payment at a reasonable rent with all the assumed obligations that a tenant would have under a tenant and landlord relationship, so the point is addressed.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was addressing a further point—which his amendments certainly do—about where there is no agreement, it is unclear what the relationship is and a payment cannot be ascertained. Schedule 15 seeks to deem that by making clear choices about what is a hypothetical relationship between landlord and tenant. It has to be hypothetical because the lease does not exist. If the lease does exist, the arrangements are clear, the payments are being made and there are obligations, I do not see that it is caught under this schedule because it has been made within the rules and there is fair payment. However, I will look at that again.

I hope that I have now made myself clear. I am not keen to antagonise the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he has worked very hard on this issue and that he studies these matters very closely. However, I think that he has a misconception about what the schedule does. I will be happy to write in a fuller context to him to explain exactly why I think that what he says is not the case, but I am now in danger of repeating my points on proper relationship or no proper relationship.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I thank the Paymaster General for her comments. The simple point that I am trying to get at is that if the old couple are paying a proper arm's-length rent, it is a tenant repairing arrangement. My reading of the relevant parts of schedule 15 was that it had to be a gross rent and that a tenant repairing lease was not satisfactory. The Paymaster General gave me an answer with which I am happy, and kindly agreed to write. I add that many older people have written to me on just this issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming —

Amendments made: No. 122, in

schedule 15, page 342, line 45, leave out

'in any year of assessment'.

No. 123, in

schedule 15, page 343, line 17, at end insert—

'( ) For the purposes of this paragraph, a disposition which creates a new interest in a chattel out of an existing interest in a chattel is to be taken to be a disposal of part of the existing interest.'

No. 124, in

schedule 15, page 343, line 34, leave out 'relevant' and insert 'valuation'.

No. 125, in

schedule 15, page 343, line 36, at end insert

'or, where the disposal was a non-exempt sale, the appropriate proportion of that value'.

No. 126, in

schedule 15, page 343, line 40, after 'person' insert

'or, where the original disposal was a non-exempt sale, to the appropriate proportion of that property'.

No. 127, in

schedule 15, page 343, line 45, at end insert—

'(2A) The disposal by the chargeable person of an interest in a chattel is a ''non-exempt sale'' if (although not an excluded transaction) it was a sale of his whole interest in the chattel for a consideration paid in money in sterling or any other currency; and, in relation to a non-exempt sale, ''the appropriate proportion'' is—

where—

MV-P is the value of the interest in the chattel at the time of the sale;

P is the amount paid.'.

No. 128, in

schedule 15, page 344, line 11, leave out

'in any year of assessment'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Amendment proposed: No. 129, in

schedule 15, page 344, line 12, leave out

'any income arising under a settlement'

and insert

'the terms of a settlement, as they affect any property comprised in the settlement, are such that any income arising from the property'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 44, in

schedule 15, page 344, line 18, after 'settlor', insert

'and the words ''or will or may become'' were replaced by the word ''currently'' in the subsection'.

Government amendment No. 130.

Amendment No. 45, in

schedule 15, page 344, leave out lines 34 to 38 and insert—

'T is the amount of income and capital gains on which any income tax or capital gains tax is payable by virtue of section 660A or section 739 of the Taxes Act 1988 or section 77 or section 86 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (c.12), so far as attributable to the relevant property.'.

Amendment No. 107, in

schedule 15, page 344, line 34, leave out

'of any income tax or capital gains tax payable'

and insert

'by reference to which any income tax or capital gains tax is payable'.

Government amendment No. 131.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The intention of Government amendment No. 129 is to ensure that settlements are chargeable under paragraph 8 only if income would be caught by section 660A of the Taxes Act 1988 by virtue of the terms of the settlement, and not for other

reasons such as the settlor's ability to switch income into the settlement by waiving dividends on shares standing outside the settlement. The amendment is fine, but it does not specifically address the concerns raised by my amendment No. 44.

The context is that paragraph 8 is included to restrict the application of section 660A, bringing it into line with the gift with reservation rules. The particular circumstance excluded from charge is that in which the settled property cannot currently be payable to, or applicable for, the benefit of the chargeable person but where it will or may become so payable or applicable. The Inland Revenue accepts that a donor's retention of a reversionary interest under a trust will not constitute a reservation. That point is important in respect of trusts if the settlor is the ultimate default beneficiary under the terms of a resulting trust only because the draftsman omitted to include an exhaustive default clause that entirely excludes the settlor.

Likewise, the Revenue's advanced instruction manual states in an example at D.74:

''A transfers assets into a discretionary settlement under which he is not included in the class of beneficiaries. There is however power to the trustees to add beneficiaries including A to the class at some future date. The question of whether the possibility that A's name might be added to the class is a reservation is one which can be determined only on the particular facts.''

As currently drafted, paragraph 8 ignores those two important exemptions from the gift with reservation charge by adopting the much wider scope of section 66(2)(a). Our amendment seeks to correct that and to ensure that there is a pre-owned assets charge only when there is a current possibility of benefit. In other words, we are dealing with something on which the Revenue's position is already clear, irrespective of what the Government have viewed as avoidance.

Government amendment No. 130 clarifies that when different property in a settlement is subject to different trusts, it is only the property caught by the provisions that is subject to the charge. That does not address various matters in our related amendments but is welcome.

Our amendment No. 45 would apply to the calculation of the income tax charge on pre-owned intangibles, which is a tricky area that has not so far been addressed. The set-off should be on a comparable basis so that either tax is offset against tax or the value on which one tax is paid is offset against the value on which the other tax is paid. As currently drawn, a deduction for the tax paid will be offset not against the new tax charge but against the amount on which the new tax charge is to be assessed. That is inequitable and will lead to ridiculously high marginal rates. Even if the income attributable to the relevant property for the taxable period is the same amount as ''N'' there will, nevertheless, be a tax charge pursuant to paragraph 8(3). There should be a reference to sections 73(9) and 86 to cover income and gains of non-UK resident trusts which are assessed on the settlor. The amendment seeks to correct those points and to ensure that the sum in the provision works so that no inequity arises.

Government amendment No. 131 goes half way towards our amendment No. 45 by introducing a reference to sections 73(9) and 86, but it does not correct the computational problems that we have sought to address in amendments Nos. 45 and 107.

Amendment No. 107 comes from the estates group, which noticed an error in the formula in the calculation in paragraph 9, under which only 40 per cent. of the appropriate deduction can be taken.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

This large group of amendments tabled by the Government and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs covers similar areas in some respects. I want to deal with the areas on which the Opposition amendments do not touch.

All the amendments aim to fine tune the charge in paragraph 8 which applies to intangible assets. Paragraph 8 charges the benefit when people take intangible assets out of their estate for inheritance tax purposes but continue to have effective access to them. A typical case is when the taxpayer sets up a discretionary trust to hold their assets. The current inheritance tax rules exempt lifetime gifts of those assets, like other lifetime gifts, only if the taxpayer really gives them away. There are schemes to get round that rule for intangible assets, just as there are schemes to get round the rules for tangible assets such as houses, art and antiques.

A taxpayer can, by artificial mechanisms, set up a trust and sidestep the existing inheritance tax rules, which are intended to ensure that such trusts do not reduce their estate which is liable to inheritance tax. The end result is exactly comparable with schemes for tangible assets and, in some cases, the paperwork is the same for both assets. Making such an arrangement brings clear benefits. Knowing that taxpayers have substantial capital sums available to them, but will not have to pay the inheritance tax like other owners, would clearly leave those taxpayers better off than their neighbours, who either do not have the wealth or have it but choose to pay their prospective tax bills.

Opposition amendments Nos. 45 and 107 deal with the same point in different terms. I cannot accept them, because they would not address the points that the Government want to deal with in our amendments. Amendment No. 45 raises a secondary point, which is dealt with more comprehensively by Government amendment No. 129 to which I shall return. The main point arises from the fact that the charge on intangible assets is aimed at elaborate trust structures. It is much the same arrangement as has been used for income tax and capital gains tax, which has provided various past efforts at anti-avoidance legislation.

As the schedule recognises, some of the existing charges may already apply to the structures that we are now charging under the schedule. That leads me yet again to section 660A, which seems to have featured a lot in our debates thus far. Under the schedule, the former owner can have a deduction for tax paid under the existing rules when calculating the benefit that he is treated as receiving for the purpose of the new charge. Under the Opposition amendments, the deduction for tax should be converted into a set-off for the underlying taxable income.

The Opposition are suggesting that if the former owner has to take account of income of, say, £10,000 from his different structure under section 660A when calculating his tax liability and charge under schedule 15, and that amounts to £12,000, only £2,000 would be taxable. That would be so even if the amount taxable under section 660A were offset by other reliefs and losses. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can see where I am going. He wants to persuade me that I should allow a charge arising from a structure under 660A to offset a charge under schedule 15, but to ignore the fact that the charge under 660A might have been used to offset reliefs and losses in that area. Clearly, that is not justified.

The existing charges and the new charges under schedule 15 will tackle two different aspects. The existing charges will tackle avoidance of tax on the income and realised capital gains earned by the structures, if there are any. It is possible to present risks in that direction without containing the added ingredients needed to achieve the inheritance tax avoidance. If that is all that is going on, the existing charges will deal with it and they are all that should be paid. Depending on the assets involved, it is equally possible for structures to contain the special features needed to avoid inheritance tax without risking any avoidance of income tax or capital gains tax. In that case, the charge under schedule 15 is all that should apply and the existing charges are not relevant.

Sometimes, both features will be present, and the existing charge and the new one will apply. That is because two distinct things are going on, both of which deserve to be taxed. As drafted, the schedule treats the tax paid under the existing rules as a deductible cost against the taxable benefit, which is treated as arising from inheritance tax avoidance. That is generous, to put it mildly, and it would be justified even to treat the two aspects as quite separate and give no deduction. I do not propose that the Committee should remove the deduction contained in the schedule. There is no justification for going further. This is generous enough, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it.

Amendment No. 45 would add two further existing charges under section 739 of the Taxes Act and section 86 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 to the two charges that are mentioned in the schedule. I accept that those should have added, but the list is incomplete, even in the Opposition amendment. Government amendment No. 131 does the same job a little more thoroughly than was achieved in their first attempt, or as attempted in the Opposition amendment, by adding charges under section 547 of the Taxes Act. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, too.

Government amendments Nos. 29 and 30 make two further improvements to paragraph 8, so that it does not apply where it should not. Paragraph 8 is aimed at situations where a formal owner has shifted intangible assets outside the taxable estate in such a way that he

can still benefit from them. It has been pointed out that the schedule, as drafted, can apply in situations where the former owner's control does not go quite as far as that. The clearest example of that arises with dividend waivers. If someone who owns a company puts some of their shares into the trust, but retains the rest, they can manipulate the income of the trust by waiving the dividends on the shares they retain, even though they may put the capital value of the trust generally out of their reach. Such a situation would be caught by schedule 15, and we agree that it should be excluded. Amendment No. 129 would restrict the charge on assets in a trust to cases where the former owner's interest in the trust asset derives only from the terms of the trust.

Amendment No. 130 covers a narrower point. Sometimes a single trust contains distinct sub-funds held in different trusts. One sub-fund might be caught by the test in paragraph 8, while the other sub-fund might not. The amendment ensures that we only tax the assets of the caught sub-fund or funds, rather than the whole assets of the trust.

Finally, I recommend that the Committee does not accept amendment No. 44, because it would effectively wreck the charge in paragraph 8, whether it was intended to do so or not. It would require the charge only where the structure is generating income that is taxable on the settlor under the existing anti-avoidance provisions. However, that is not the mischief that we are trying to tax. Although many of the structures arrange their funds so that they do not generate any current taxable income, notably in the form of insurance bonds, that does not mean that they generate no benefit. The benefit comes from knowing that the taxpayer has substantial funds that are available to them if they want them, and they will never have to pay the inheritance tax bill that normally goes with that level of wealth. We aim to tax that benefit.

The Opposition amendments would let such people off scot-free, so long as people using such structures were careful to invest the contents in the right sort of assets. As I said at the beginning, I am not sure whether that was the intention of amendment No. 44. I think not. However, that would happen in its interaction with the schedules. The Committee will not be surprised that I am not keen to accept that principle.

In summary, the amendments contain more relieving measures and provide clarity on the operation as regard intangible assets. Opposition amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 107 are either superseded by the Government amendments, or go further than the Government is prepared to go. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to press any of them to a vote, I will ask my hon. Friends to oppose them.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I confess that we are now in territory in which the details are somewhat beyond my grasp.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

You are not alone.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Thank you.

There are two points of principle that I ask the Paymaster General and the Revenue to look into and make sure that they are happy about. The first is in

relation to clause 44. As I stated, there are, as we understand it, two important existing exemptions from a gift with reservation which have been ignored in the drafting of schedule 15 and the adoption of the much wider scope of section 660A. The first question is whether that is intended. If so, that needs to be made clear. If it is not intended, and the amendment is not satisfactory, perhaps another route to address the problem might be found.

The second point is the subject of amendments Nos. 45 and 107. I understand what the Paymaster General says about the fact that, if the tax paid has already been offset by something else, it should not be double-used; that is fair enough. However, if that is not the point, it seems common sense that the provisions should allow tax for tax, or value for value. The amendments are not designed to open doors to particular wheezes; the point simply seemed a reasonably fair one to make on a common-sense basis.

There is no point in putting our amendments to the vote; the Government amendments address part of the issues. I would be grateful if my two specific points could be looked into further.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 130, in

schedule 15, page 344, line 19, leave out

'the property comprised in the settlement'

and insert 'that property'.

No. 131, in

schedule 15, page 344, line 36, leave out from beginning to 'attributable' in line 37 and insert

'any of the following provisions—

(a) section 547 of the Taxes Act 1988,

(b) section 660A of that Act,

(c) section 739 of that Act,

(d) section 77 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (c.12), and

(e) section 86 of that Act,

so far as the tax is'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Amendment proposed: No. 132, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 2, leave out 'this Schedule' and insert

'paragraphs 3(2) and 6(2) (the disposal condition)'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 46, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 5, leave out 'whole'.

Government amendments Nos. 133 to 135.

Amendment No. 47, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 18, at end insert—

'(e) it was a disposal more than seven years prior to the date when he first occupies the relevant land or is first in possession of or first has the use of the chattel, or

(f) it was a disposal by way of gift, the value of which at the date of the gift did not exceed the upper limit shown in the second column of the Table in Schedule 1 to IHTA 1984.'.

Government amendments Nos. 136 to 139.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The Government amendments in this group relate in the main to the broadening of reliefs for certain situations. Amendment No. 136 provides for three exemptions that relate to transactions in which a disposal was for the maintenance of the family. A gift that falls within the annual exemption and a small gift

are also covered. That extends the excluded transactions to include IHT exemptions that were not previously covered, and the amendment is therefore welcome.

Amendment No. 137 broadens the excluded transactions from the contribution condition, and extends reliefs to gifts of money if they have not given rise to a chargeable benefit within seven years of the gift—an improvement referred to in previous debate and one which will be helpful for the tracing provisions—to expenditure for the maintenance of the taxpayer's family and to gifts covered by IHT annual exemption and small gifts exemption. Those points do not address amendment No. 46, but go some way towards dealing with the issues we wish to raise through amendment No. 47 by easing the onerous tracing conditions.

Amendment No. 46 reflects the question why disposals of only an entire interest and property should be excluded transactions. It seems odd that a taxpayer could give a half-share of his property to a child who occupies the property with him. Such arrangements would be exempt from charge pursuant to paragraph 11(1)(c), but the taxpayer who sells half a share to his son, who then occupies the property with him, is subject to a proposed tax charge, arguably because the sale concerned is less than the sale of the whole interest.

That seems a rather stupid anomaly, and I do not understand the rationale behind it. The Historic Houses Association makes the point that someone who sells part of his property at full value, such as a basement flat, but remains in occupation of the rest, ought to have the benefit of being included in the category of excluded transactions. Such deals are frequently struck within families. It would be most unfair if that were not the case in what the Government are getting at.

Amendment No. 47 is designed to have two effects. The first part brings in a seven-year cut-off date for tracing gifts, and the second part suggests an exemption for gifts within the nil rate band. Essentially, the Government have accepted the seven year point, but I am not clear whether the nil rate band has been accepted.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I shall just deal with amendments Nos. 46 and 47 because I understood the hon. Gentleman to agree with all of the Government's amendments. Amendment No. 46 proposes to relax the provision in paragraph 10 which caters for cases where people enjoy property that they have previously sold. The schedule restricts that relief to cases where the former owner's whole interest has been sold apart from any right that they retain to carry on using the property. The amendment would remove the requirement that the whole interest should be sold without making clear what new tests would go in its place. That is a technical problem with the amendment.

I do not object in principle to a relaxation in this case as long as both I and the Inland Revenue are satisfied that it meets a real need and that it can be done without exposing the Exchequer to significant risk. There may

be issues that we need to consider if homeowners, for example, want to raise money through equity-release type transactions without disposing of the whole equity on the property.

I should say to the hon. Gentleman that, as I am sure he appreciates, we need to proceed on the matter very carefully because the Exchequer risks are very high. Many of the most artificial schemes that we are trying to counter involve what are formally sales of the former owner's property that were made in contrived terms as part of a wider avoidance scheme. If there is a case for change, amendment No. 46 is not the right response. I still want to ensure that we have carved out the contrived schemes to be dealt with by the schedule.

I am prepared to give the matter further consideration. I am not saying that that will done on Report, as I think we need to consider it carefully. I need to know more about the transactions that we are being asked to cover. Should we subsequently be convinced that a further exemption is required, the enabling power in paragraph 14 provides the ability for us to craft new exemptions into that paragraph as and when the need arises. I do not want to raise the hon. Gentleman's hopes too high, but there is an issue about equity release and we need much more information about it.

One of the big problems with that whole area in clause 84 and in schedule 15 has been the apparent reluctance of taxpayers to come forward and tell us exactly the type of schemes to which they have signed up. Therefore, the matter has been very difficult, and I think that the exchange that the hon. Gentleman and I had not long before we suspended on the tenant-landlord relationship in a leaseback was an example of that. I hope that he will not press his amendment on the basis that the area that we are discussing is one to which I am prepared to give further consideration.

Amendment No. 47 overlaps to a large degree with the proposals contained in Government amendment No. 137. Both are designed to relieve gifts after a quarantine period of seven years if the donor has not had benefit from them of the sort that would be charged by the schedule within the period. The gifts are to be disregarded from that time on. Our amendment is more generous in that it is not restricted, as the Opposition proposal is, to gifts that were below the inheritance tax threshold when they were made. Our amendment is restricted to gifts of money.

I do not think that there is anything between us on the thinking behind those proposals. They reflect proposals that have been made in representations since the Bill was published. They reduce any extra record keeping and compliance costs arising out of the schedule because they mean that donors will generally have to keep track of their gifts only for the seven-year period that already applies for inheritance tax purposes. They eliminate the risk that gifts covered by this new relief, such as assistance from a parent to a

child to buy a house, might provoke a similar charge, because of a change in the circumstances of the two parties long after the original gift.

We propose to focus the relief on gifts of money, because that is where it is needed. Frankly, if we give away something other than money, and subsequently come to benefit from it, that will generally be covered by the existing inheritance tax gift with reservation rules. Anything that is covered by those rules is already excluded from the new charge by the reliefs in paragraph 11 There is no need to relieve those cases a second time, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the matters have been dealt with. There is an undertaking to consider the details on, for example, the equity release covered by amendment No. 46 when the measure is in place.

I say to the hon. Gentleman that he must encourage those who are supplying him with the information to come forward to the tax authorities with exactly what they seek to encourage us to exempt and what their arrangements are. If that were done and the case were made, I would certainly bring proposals to the House at the appropriate time. I hope that he will not press the amendment on that basis.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Amendment No. 46 is the only issue being considered. I welcome the Paymaster General's comments. I made specific reference to a comment that was made by the Historic Houses Association, so there is one possible lead for the Revenue. However, it seems a pretty obvious point that, irrespective of whatever fancy schemes people might have thought of in the past, it is nonsense for there to be a situation whereby if one gives a half-share to a child, it is exempt, but if one sells the half-share to the child, it is not. That straightforward point, along with equity release schemes, needs to be addressed. It would be desirable to address it before schedule 15 becomes law.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 133, in

schedule 15, page 345, leave out lines 11 to 13.

No. 134, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 15, leave out 'or'.

No. 135, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 16, leave out from beginning to 'settled' and insert

'it was a disposal by way of gift (or, where the transfer is for the benefit of his former spouse, in accordance with a court order), by virtue of which the property became'.

No. 136, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 18, at end insert—

'(e) the disposal was a disposition falling within section 11 of IHTA 1984 (dispositions for maintenance of family), or

(f) the disposal is an outright gift to an individual and is for the purposes of IHTA 1984 a transfer of value that is wholly exempt by virtue of section 19 (annual exemption) or section 20 (small gifts).'

No. 137, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 18, at end insert—

'(1A) For the purposes of paragraphs 3(3) and 6(3) (the contribution condition) the provision by a person (''the chargeable person'') of consideration for another's acquisition of any property is an ''excluded transaction'' in relation to the chargeable person if—

(a) the other person was his spouse (or, where the transfer has been ordered by the court, his former spouse),

(b) on its acquisition the property became settled property in which his spouse or former spouse is beneficially entitled to an interest in possession,

(c) the provision of the consideration constituted an outright gift of money (in sterling or any other currency) by the chargeable person to the other person and was made at least seven years before the earliest date on which the chargeable person met the condition in paragraph 3(1)(a) or, as the case may be, 6(1)(a),

(d) the provision of the consideration is a disposition falling within section 11 of IHTA 1984 (dispositions for maintenance of family), or

(e) the provision of the consideration is an outright gift to an individual and is for the purposes of IHTA 1984 a transfer of value that is wholly exempt by virtue of section 19 (annual exemption) or section 20 (small gifts).'

No. 138, in

schedule 15, page 345, leave out lines 20 and 21.

No. 139, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 22, after '(1)(d)' insert 'or (1A)(b)'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Amendment proposed: No. 140, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 26, leave out from beginning to 'property' in line 28 and insert—

'(A1) Paragraph 3 (land), paragraph 6 (chattels) and paragraph 8 (intangible property) do not apply to a person at a time when his estate for the purposes of IHTA 1984 includes—

(a) the relevant property, or

(b) other property—

(i) which derives its value from the relevant property, and

(ii) whose value, so far as attributable to the relevant property, is not substantially less than the value of the relevant property.

(A2) Where the estate for the purposes of IHTA 1984 of a person to whom paragraph 3, 6 or 8 applies includes property—

(a) which derives its value from the relevant property, and

(b) whose value, so far as attributable to the relevant property, is substantially less than the value of the relevant property,

the appropriate rental value in paragraph 4, the appropriate amount in paragraph 7 or the chargeable amount in paragraph 9 (as the case may be) is to be reduced by such proportion as is reasonable to take account of the inclusion of the property in his estate.

(1) Paragraphs 3, 6 and 8 do not apply to a person at a time when the relevant'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 48, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 31, at end insert

'or would have fallen to be so treated by the provisions of sections 102A or 102B of the 1986 Act if the disposal by way of gift had been made on or after 9th March 1999 or would have fallen to be so treated by the provisions of section 102 of the 1986 Act if the disposal by way of gift had been made on or after 19th June 2003.'.

Government amendment No. 141.

Amendment No. 49, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 42, at end insert

'or would fall to be so treated but for the provisions of section 102C(3) of the 1986 Act.

(e) would fall to be so treated but for the proviso to subsection (3) or subsections (4) or (5) of section 102A of the 1986 Act or would fall to be so treated but for subsection (3) of section 102B of the 1986 Act or would have fallen to be so treated but for any of those subsections if the disposal by way of gift had been made on or after 9th March 1999.

(f) would fall to be treated by virtue of the IHTA 1984 as property to which he, his spouse or former spouse is beneficially entitled or where the value of the property is attributable to other property which would fall to be treated by virtue of the IHTA 1984 as property to which he, his spouse or former spouse is beneficially entitled.'.

Government amendment No. 142.

Amendment No. 108, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 42, at end insert—

'(g) is settled property which became settled property by virtue of a disposal by way of gift made by him and in which he, his spouse, or former spouse is for the time being beneficially entitled to an interest in possession (whether or not any such interest in possession subsisted when the property first became settled property)'.

Government amendment No. 143.

Amendment No. 50, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 45, after second 'property', insert 'directly or indirectly'.

Amendment No. 109, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 47, leave out subparagraph (b) and insert—

'(b) he, his spouse or former spouse is for the time being beneficially entitled to an interest in possession in the settled property (whether or not any such interest in possession subsisted when the property first became settled property).'.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The Government amendments in this group provide for substantial additional reliefs, which are welcome. Amendment No. 140 would provide for an exemption where the property occupied by a former owner is included in their estate for inheritance tax, or where their estate includes other property whose value reflects the value of the property being enjoyed.

That addresses in the main our aims in tabling amendment No. 49, which would cover a similar scenario. We were seeking an extension of the change in circumstances rules to give relief where a former owner reoccupies a property on account of old age or infirmity. Government amendment No. 141 would at least partially address that by making an exemption for circumstances in section 102C of the Finance Act 1986.

The amendment is required only if a start date of 10 December 2003 is not conceded, which it has not been. The gifts with reservation rules have already been twice amended by the Government, following Inland Revenue defeats in the cases of Ingram and Eversden. Those amendments took effect on 9 March 1999 and 19 June 2003 respectively.

Anyone who had undertaken planning of the sort approved in those cases prior to the date of amendment would be caught by the proposed amendment and therefore fall within paragraph 11(1)(a). They would therefore avoid a pre-owned assets charge. Paradoxically, anyone having undertaken planning before these earlier dates, whose planning was therefore legitimised by the court, would not fall within paragraph 11(1) and would therefore be subject to a pre-owned assets charge. My amendment would rectify the anomaly.

The situation is perverse. For example, an individual who entered into Lady Ingram-style planning before 9 March 1999, and therefore had not made a gift with reservation, would be caught by the new charge.

Amendment No. 49 would add to paragraph 11(1)(d) and insert two new paragraphs. The explanatory notes explain that the paragraph is necessary because a pre-owned assets charge would be inappropriate where

''a former owner needs to move back into the gifted property following a change in their circumstances.''

The continuation of the IHT exemption in such circumstances is welcome. The IHT exemption is contained in paragraph 6 of schedule 20 to the 1986 Act and in section 102C(4) and (3). Without this amendment, anyone falling within the IHT exemption contained in section 102C(3) would still be subject to a pre-owned assets charge.

New paragraph 11(1)(e) mirrors the provision in paragraph 11(1)(c), which applies to shared ownership or shared occupational arrangements, in relation to the other statutory IHT exemptions under section 102 of the 1986 Act. In the absence of any explanation to the contrary, it seems perverse that a number of exemptions to the IHT gifts with reservation of benefit rules were included when those rules were changed by the current Government in the Finance Act 1999, yet only one of those exemptions is mirrored, by existing paragraph 11(1)(c), which is to be mirrored in the new rules.

The first limb of new paragraph 11(1)(f) is intended to ensure that where the property potentially is subject to the pre-owned assets charges already included as part of the charge for a person's estate on general inheritance tax principles, pre-owned assets charge will not apply. That point is particularly important when arrangements are dismantled, as the Government have suggested they might be, and when therefore the property originally disposed of is returned.

The key comment here is that it is perfectly possible for property to revert unexpectedly to a donor following the death of a donee, and in those circumstances where the property will be back in the estate of the donor for IHT purposes, he should not be required to pay the new income tax charged by virtue of the fact that he is occupying a property he once gave away. He cannot elect to avoid the income tax charged for having the property revert to this estate because it has already gone there by another route.

The second limb of the paragraph excludes from a pre-owned assets charge the situation where an individual transfers property to a company that he owns and the value of his shares in it is thereby augmented. Although the individual no longer owns the assets in those circumstances, the value of those assets is reflected as part of his estate for inheritance tax. That is of particular importance in relation to the incorporation of a business.

Amendment No. 50 is intended to make it clear that exemption applies not only to the particular property originally disposed of but to any replacement property subsequently acquired by the trustees. The excluded transactions arrangements appear to apply only where the interest in possession subsisted when the property was initially settled by the settlor. They do not appear to apply where there was originally no interest in possession—where there was a discretionary trust that was subsequently converted into an interest in possession trust. Amendment No. 108 would introduce a new paragraph providing an exemption to cover such a situation.

I turn to amendment No. 109. Paragraph 11(2) applies to intangible property. It is narrower than the excluded transactions provisions, which do not extend to intangible property, in that it does not apply to a trust where the spouse is a former spouse of a settlor who has an interest in possession. This amendment would extend paragraph 11(2) to provide an exemption in those circumstances and to make it clear, so as to parallel proposed paragraph 11(1)(g), that the exemption applies also where there was initially no interest in possession in the settled property.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

Government amendments Nos. 140, 142 and 143 improve and extend the reliefs given by schedule 15 for cases where someone enjoys property that they formerly owned, so that the schedule could apply, but their taxable estate reflects all or part of the value of the asset that they have disposed of. I think the hon. Gentleman welcomed those proposals.

Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 would introduce limited protection for past users of inheritance tax avoidance schemes who were fortunate enough to implement them before they were blocked by specific anti-avoidance provision. I can see the arguments for saying that schedule 15 should have no application whatever to any transactions before last December, but I reject them. I do not see the logic of singling out those cases for special treatment. We have already discussed the general question of whether the schedule should affect the future tax consequences of past transactions, and I have already made the Government's position clear. We believe that schedule 15 can quite properly extend to existing structures, and that it is essential that it does so if we are to retain packaged tax avoidance under a measure of control.

The cases covered by Opposition amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are no different from any other existing cases in this context. People who use such schemes have established a favourable inheritance tax position for themselves. The anti-avoidance legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, introduced in 1999 and 2003, was, quite properly, not retrospective, and left those advantages undisturbed. The current legislation is also not retrospective and continues to leave those advantages undisturbed. The schedule does something else altogether: it charges income tax when people enjoy future benefits for the year 2005-06 onwards. If the amendments were made, the schedule would

continue to apply to future benefits arising from, we are told, tens of thousands of existing structures, which do not fit the Ingram or Eversden specifications. It is quite right that those cases should be charged, and if the Committee is prepared to go that far, there is no reason why it should stop at those cases that would be excused by these amendments. It goes to the heart of what the schedule is trying to do.

We have also had considerable discussion about the scheme being aimed at people who have circumvented the current inheritance tax rules, or who will do so in future. It is clear, from everything that the Government have published and that I have said in Committee, that we are determined to deal with such avoidance. Amendments Nos. 50, 108 and 109 touch on the most complex aspects of what are already complex provisions. They are complex by the nature of the schemes to which they seek to respond. It is not the tax system that has decided to become ever more complicated, but the schemes to which it is responding. The law is designed to counter cases where the owners of valuable property set up a complex structure to get rid of their ownership for tax purposes, while retaining the enjoyment of the property. That does not mean that all trust structures are suspect and should be caught under schedule 15. Some of them are set up for good, non-tax reasons, do not try to avoid inheritance tax, and do not do so. It is right that schedule 15 should exclude such cases, and it aims to do so.

If there is room for improvements in the provisions, we should make them, but we must be particularly careful that we do not reopen the type of avoidance opportunities that were exploited so enthusiastically before the pre-Budget report. The schedule gives relief for cases where the former owner or their spouse has an interest in possession of the property that they formerly owned. The idea is that they are treated for tax purposes as owning the property in which they have an interest in possession, so that they do not avoid tax by swapping ownership outright, for interest in possession. That is fine, so long as the value of the interest in possession is the same as the value of the underlying property, but that is where the Opposition proposals break down.

Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 would extend relief to cases whenever the former owner or their spouse came to own what is called an interest in possession in property in a trust. They would apply even if the trust was originally set up on other terms—as with a discretionary trust—and the interest in possession was decided only later. That is exactly the sort of situation where artificial steps could be inserted in the intervening period to ensure that the interest in possession had only a nominal value for tax purposes. It is not acceptable. Therefore, the Government have proposed an alternative approach, which is implemented in amendment Nos. 131, 132, 133 and 141, which we have dealt with.

If I correctly understand Opposition amendment No. 49, it aims to tackle the same broad point using different means. It is exposed to very much the same risk as are amendment Nos. 108 and 109, in that it would let in an opportunity for avoidance. To the

extent that they would cater for deserving cases, we believe that those are also covered by the Government amendments in a way that should prove safer for the Exchequer. Therefore, the amendments are not needed.

In summary, for the reasons that I have explained, I recommend to the Committee that it accept the Government amendments. Should the hon. Gentleman decide to put amendments Nos. 48, 49, 50, 108 and 109 to a vote, we will have to oppose them.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

As I commented, we are happy with the Government amendments. I understand the position of the Paymaster General with regard to amendment No. 48. We are making two points. One is that the Ingram and Eversden legal case clarified the law at the time. We then had Government measures on 9 March 1999 and 19 June 2003. Aside from the overall argument about retrospection, there is an argument that, at those dates, that was the law. The Government had the opportunity to change the law as it is now changing it, but it did not do so. Therefore, those are key dates for clearance.

There also seems to be an anomaly in that the position is different depending on whether arrangements happened before or after those dates. In essence, the post-date situations get a preferred position to the pre-date positions. That is complex territory. In the main, I think it is part of the case against retrospective legislation, but there are some anomalies to be sorted out.

The Paymaster General opposes amendment Nos. 108 and 109 on the grounds that they open doors for avoidance. I think that there are some bona fide arguments that should be further considered by the Government in the interests of justice. All our amendments are reasonably technical.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 141, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 41, after 'for' insert 'section 102C(3) of and'—

No. 142, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 42, at end insert—

'(1A) Where at any time the value of a person's estate for the purposes of IHTA 1984 is reduced by an excluded liability affecting any property, that property is not to be treated for the purposes of sub-paragraph (A1) or (A2) as comprised in his estate except to the extent that the value of the property exceeds the amount of the excluded liability.

(1B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1A) a liability is an excluded liability if—

(a) the creation of the liability, and

(b) any transaction by virtue of which the person's estate came to include the relevant property or property which derives its value from the relevant property or by virtue of which the value of property in his estate came to be derived from the relevant property,

were associated operations, as defined by section 268 of IHTA 1984.

(1C) In determining whether the relevant property falls within sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c) or (d) in a case where the contribution condition in paragraph 3(3) or 6(3) is met, paragraph 2(2)(b) of Schedule 20 (exclusion of gifts of money) is to be disregarded.

(1D) In sub-paragraphs (A1) to (1C) ''the relevant property'' means—

(a) in relation to paragraphs 3 and 6—

(i) where the disposal condition in paragraph 3(2) or 6(2) is met, the property disposed of,

(ii) where the contribution condition in paragraph 3(3) or 6(3) is met, the property representing the consideration directly or indirectly provided,

(b) in relation to paragraph 8, the relevant property within the meaning of that paragraph.'—

No. 143, in

schedule 15, page 345, line 43, leave out sub-paragraph (2).—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I beg to move amendment No. 112, in

schedule 15, page 346, line 8, after '(2)', insert

'Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below.'.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments No. 144 and 145.

Amendment No. 51, in

schedule 15, page 346, line 14, at end insert

'or in property directly or indirectly derived from the property so disposed of'.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The amendment is a means of seeking clarification on whether paragraph 12(2) or paragraph 12(3) has precedence. That is not addressed in the Government amendments. Although they provide useful clarification on which property falls within the scope of the charge, they do not appear to address the issues raised by our amendment. We understand that the Inland Revenue was deciding whether sub-paragraph (2) was subject to sub-paragraph (3) or vice versa.

Amendment No. 51 is intended to make it clear that the exemption applies not only to the particular property originally disposed of but to any replacement property subsequently acquired by the donee.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

The Government amendments grouped with amendment No. 112 are intended to resolve the conflict between sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), which the hon. Gentleman identified. We have received some generally welcoming representations on the approach adopted in the Bill, but there were suggestions that we could make the precise impact of paragraph 12 even clearer. We see some force in that claim, which is why Government amendments Nos. 144 and 145 do precisely that.

Amendment No. 144 makes the purpose of sub-paragraph (2) even more explicit by making it clear that the charge can apply to someone who is not domiciled here only if the property in question is situated here. If there is any doubt about the original wording, the amendment removes it.

Amendment No. 145 makes it clear that the charge does not apply to any excluded property, as that is defined for inheritance tax purposes. Once again, that removes any possible doubt about the scope of the charge. The Government amendments provide that additional comfort to those affected by paragraph 12. I hope that the Committee will welcome that, and that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the matter is now resolved.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I would be grateful if the Paymaster General would comment on my latter remarks, on amendment No. 51. As I said, the amendment is designed to make it clear that the exemption covers replacement property.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I thought that the Government amendments did things rather better, and I was trying to be brief.

The Opposition amendments are intended to extend the exemption for people formerly domiciled outside the UK, but taken together they would exclude from the charge any property derived from assets that were disposed of before the person came to the UK. That has very wide-ranging implications. The exemption could include all or most of somebody's property in the UK, if it was derived from property disposed of before they became domiciled here. That is quite likely to be the case where someone has moved to take up permanent residence in the UK.

My view is that the Opposition amendments would significantly weaken paragraph 12 and would not do what the hon. Gentleman wants them to do: to clarify the operation of sub-paragraphs (2) and (3). The Government amendments do that adequately without opening up problems of future avoidance. That is why I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am happy with the Paymaster General's comments on the point that we were seeking to address. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 144, in

schedule 15, page 346, line 9, leave out from 'Schedule' to the end of line 10 and insert

'does not apply to him unless the property falling within paragraph 3(1)(a), 6(1)(a) or 8(1)(c) is situated in the United Kingdom.'.

No. 145, in

schedule 15, page 346, line 12, leave out from 'any' to end of line 14 and insert

'property which is for the purposes of IHTA 1984 excluded property in relation to him by virtue of section 48(3)(a) of that Act'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Amendment proposed: No. 146, in

schedule 15, page 346, line 22, leave out '£2,500' and insert '£5,000'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 60, in

schedule 15, page 346, line 22, leave out '£2,500' and insert '£10,000'.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Government amendment No. 146 increases the de minimis exemption from £2,500 to £5,000, which would have the broad effect of exempting gifts of up to approximately £100,000. Amendment No. 60 would increase the exemption to £10,000, thus exempting gifts up to £200,000. The latter is below, but closer to, the IHT exemption floor. I presume that we would all want to avoid the need to update this legislation every year, and inevitably inflation will reduce values. It would be more sensible

for the exemption limit in amendment No. 60 to apply. Although we are grateful for the Government's increasing the limit, a £200,000 limit is more appropriate in the circumstances.

Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Bristol South)

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The proposal to increase the de minimis exemption to £10,000 goes too far. It is primarily not about the short-run yield. Most of the avoidance schemes that people were operating recently involved assets worth £500,000 or more. It is not likely that such assets will benefit from any de minimis limit that we are talking about.

A level that is set at £10,000 implies underlying capital of around £200,000, or a potential inheritance tax saving of some £80,000. That is getting towards the inheritance tax threshold. People will start to find that it is worth going out of their way to achieve savings, with everything that that implies for fairness, complexity and the long-run cost to the Exchequer.

We will keep the de minimis rule under review in coming years, but for now the Government proposal in amendment No. 146 is generous and does not have the problems contained in amendment No. 60. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to put his amendment to the vote, I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to oppose it.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

We are pleased with the £100,000 level. On the granny flat situation, I simply point out to the Paymaster General that, certainly in parts of London, the £100,000 value will mean that such a situation is fraught. Again, if and when such surprise situations occur, the Government will pay the political price. However, we are pleased that there is some increase, and I see little point in pressing our amendment to a vote.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 147, in

schedule 15, page 347, line 4, leave out paragraph 16 and insert—

'16 Any disposition made by a person (''the chargeable person'') in relation to an interest in the estate of a deceased person is to be disregarded for the purposes of this Schedule if by virtue of section 17 of IHTA 1984 (changes in distribution of deceased's estate, etc.)the disposition is not treated for the purposes of inheritance tax as a transfer of value by the chargeable person.'—[Dawn Primarolo.]

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 61, in

schedule 15, page 347, line 4, after 'sections', insert '93 and'.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.