Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Mills

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I said earlier, I am not interested in eating less meat; I want to eat more meat and I want my constituents to be able to as well. The Government’s record since 2010 is formidable. They have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 26% between 2010 and 2019. Renewable electricity generation has more than quadrupled since 2010. The year 2019 was the cleanest on record with more than half of UK electricity coming from low-carbon technologies. As I said earlier, we have cut emissions by 43% since 1990, with 75% economic growth. We are targeting a reduction in emissions by 78% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels. We are on the right path to net zero by 2050, but we have to do this with economic growth. We are not fanatics; we are sensible and proportionate in what we are trying to do and we have been doing it with considerable success since 2010.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

Some us have noticed that the English votes for English laws provisions have been suspended and we regret that they still are, but will the Leader of the House at least commit to keeping his promise that the changes introduced to respond to the pandemic will be temporary and will be reversed, and, if he wishes to change the EVEL rules, that there will be a vote in this Parliament to do so?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any change to EVEL Standing Orders—and it is worth bearing in mind that the EVEL Standing Orders take up slightly over 10% of all our Standing Orders. They are particularly impenetrable. The learned Clerks never struggle, but if it were not for the fact that the learned Clerks never struggle, even they might struggle with the intricacies of EVEL. But my hon. Friend is absolutely spot on: these changes could not take place without the support of the House.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Mills

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am afraid to say that was a completely absurd question. The pressure on the NHS is being reduced because of the work of Test and Trace. We have the capacity to process more than 800,000 tests a day, and so far more than 20 million people in this country have been tested at least once. This is an essential part of how we are tackling the pandemic and the hon. Gentleman, as always, pooh-poohs it. Typical socialist: he pooh-poohs the private sector. Without the private sector, we would not be rolling out the vaccines as fast as we are—that is another key part of our defence and action against the pandemic. Yes, the NHS is a fundamental part of our healthcare—of course it is—but the vaccines were produced by and are being produced and manufactured by private companies. We should recognise the enormous contribution that free markets have made in helping us and not pooh-pooh them.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on planning issues? In Amber Valley we have an application for a solar farm covering more than 300 acres, and although there is support for renewable energy there is not support for losing quite such a large area of countryside. It would be helpful to discuss the balance between the need for energy and the preservation of the open countryside in our constituencies.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Every Member of the House knows that we could spend every day of every week debating planning issues. They are fundamental to the representation that we provide to our constituents and are often the most contentious issues that arise. The Government set out a new White Paper on planning last year; the matter is being debated and very much thought about and will be an essential part of the Government’s programme.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Mills

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is right to praise the operation in his constituency that supports people in Swaziland. It sounds a really noble and worthy effort. As regards a debate, I sometimes feel, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman knows more about how to get debates in this place than I do. I feel that telling him how to get a debate is teaching my grandmother to suck eggs.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the staff of the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union for enabling us to publish a report overnight one working day after the deal was published? Will he use one of the five sitting days when we get back to give the Committee some more time to do a proper job of scrutinising the 1,200 pages of the agreement? That is, after all, the Committee’s main job and we have not had much time for parliamentary scrutiny today.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend once again highlights the amazing work done by the people who serve us in this House and their fantastic commitment to democracy to make sure that the wheels of democracy turn properly. I am in correspondence with the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chairman of the relevant Select Committee. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) chairs the European Scrutiny Committee, which looks at similar matters. The two of them may wish to confer.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Mills

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Obviously all spending of Government money has to be scrutinised extremely carefully. The ports fund is there to help ports across the country to improve their capacity and flow. It will be allocated in a way that is fair to all the ports involved. I know the hon. Gentleman is a great campaigner for his local port, and if he wanted to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate, I think that would be a suitable next step.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

It is apparent from the Leader of the House’s announcement of the business that if we do get a deal with the EU, there will be very little time for this House to consider it. Will he at least ensure that the Select Committee established to scrutinise the future relationship with the EU can scrutinise that deal and report to the House?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know what the question was, because my hon. Friend spoke to me about it yesterday, which is an advantage, given the weakness of the connection just then. I am aware of his concerns about the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union winding up in early January, but there is of course also the European Scrutiny Committee. It might be a very good step if the two Chairmen discussed with each other the issues that came out of any agreement that may be made. As there is a Committee, it may well be able to learn from the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). The Chairman of the future relationship Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) may have a lot of shared interests that they can exchange with each other.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Mills

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know this is a matter of concern to many hon. and right hon. Members, as we all value the pubs in our own constituencies, and in these very difficult times, the closures have fallen very heavily upon them. There is support available of £3,000 a month for pubs that are forced to close or only to do takeaway, and there is other support for pubs in the different tiers. The £3,000 has been set at the median level of rent that they would have to pay, so the figure is based on an assessment. There will be time to discuss this because there will be a whole day’s debate on the covid regulations next week, and I encourage the hon. Lady to raise her point again then.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

The Leader of the House may have seen that the European Parliament is planning to sit between Christmas and new year to approve, hopefully, any Brexit deal. Can he update the House on what plans the Government have for this House to scrutinise the potential deal and how long Select Committees will have before the House votes to consider the full details if we do get a deal?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The House last sat on Christmas day, I understand, in 1656 and it is not the intention of Her Majesty’s Government, or my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, to ask us to sit on Christmas day, or indeed the feast of St Stephen, this year. I will give updates on Government business and plans for recesses in the normal way, but at the moment have no further information to give.

Participation in Debates

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Mills

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his typically reasonable and helpful question. Obviously, if there were to be an agreement with the European Union and votes and debates on it, that would be a matter of interest to the whole House. I feel that what is being proposed and will come forward in a motion will allow that to happen. All Members are currently able to have a proxy vote, and therefore their vote will be recorded. It is very important to note that, although the proxy vote may be in the hands of Whips, individual Members are absolutely entitled either to give it to somebody else or to ask the Whip to vote in a different way from the way the Whip wants them to vote. It is not a vote that is handed over for good, and that is fundamental. The individual right of a Member to direct his or her vote is maintained, and these proposals will allow those who are clinically extremely vulnerable to participate in debates remotely. I hope that there will be an outbreak of union between the Conservative party and Plaid Cymru, though we may disagree about the status of our nation.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House accept that he has probably not commanded the support of the entire House for the Government’s approach? Will he therefore allow the House to amend any motion he tables, so that we can take the full view of the House on how its proceedings should be governed during this crisis?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I mistakenly looked at the screen and thought it had gone blank, but may I say how nice it is to see my hon. Friend here physically? He and I were great troopers together on the Back Benches for many years, and I am glad to see that he continues to hold the Government to account. The Government will bring forward a motion. I will announce the schedule of business on Thursday, although if I keep going at this rate, I may still be speaking on Thursday morning.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Mills

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is a great pity that we could not see the hon. Gentleman’s cheerful countenance, cheering us all up and bringing sweetness and light to this Chamber, as he does on a weekly basis.

The point the hon. Gentleman raises on the furlough scheme has been responded to by the Prime Minister any number of times with considerable clarity—that it is a UK-wide scheme. That is how it is operating and has operated. It continued until 31 October, and was then renewed. It remains a UK-wide scheme, and that is as it should be. I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman before, but it bears repetition, that the UK taxpayer has provided £7.2 billion of funding to Scotland and saved 779,500 jobs under the furlough scheme, in addition to the £770 million for the self-employment scheme. The United Kingdom, as a single entity, has protected the interests of Scotland, and will continue to do so.

On communication, I think the hon. Gentleman is advocating a counsel of perfection. Of course it is important to try to give notice, but it is also important to try to ensure that briefings are provided quickly, and getting that balance right is something the Government strive to do. I think, by and large, that right hon. and hon. Members appreciate the opportunity to have briefings, and that we should not delay briefings because of the risk of some people missing the relevant notification.

As regards voting in person, people need to be here—they need to be here to speak in debates, they need to be here for legislative procedures—and people are still free to go through the Division Lobbies. They have the opportunity to use a proxy if that is what they choose to do. We are a party that believes in choice, liberty and freedom.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

The Leader of the House may have seen the sad news this morning that hundreds of Argos stores will close, including the one in Alfreton in my constituency, which is a terrible blow for the employees and for the high street. Could he find time for a debate on how we can reinvigorate our high streets once this covid crisis is over?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, I had indeed heard that sad news. It is a real problem, and high streets are facing enormous challenges, mainly from developments that were taking place before the coronavirus, but exacerbated and made faster because of the coronavirus. The Government have of course got the £3.6 billion towns fund that is helping high streets, and I think there is more work to be done on that. As regards a debate, I think that is a question for the Backbench Business Committee.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Mills

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One of my roles is always to try to facilitate meetings between Members of this House and Ministers. If the hon. Gentleman has not already, I urge him to start the process by correspondence, but if that does not achieve the result he requires, then if he comes to my office, I will do what I can.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

My constituents are starting to get a little impatient that some key public services are not reopening and there is no set date for them to do so—for example, for interviews for new passports. Could the Leader of the House find time for a statement before the recess so we can have a road map of when everything will reopen, as long as the virus stays under control?

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Mills

Thursday 18th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point: with the DBS system, it is important to recognise that people can reform and that people ought to be given, in a fair society, a second chance, and that is something we as politicians should be very committed to. I will use my office in whatever way I can to try to encourage other Ministers to come to a conclusion on this and to look at it in the serious way that he suggests, though I may be a bit cautious about knocking heads together, because I am not sure that meets the requirements of social distancing.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on procurement practices across the public sector, so that we can ensure that the businesses across the country that stepped up and provided the personal protective equipment we needed have a fair chance to bid for longer-term contracts?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is an important issue, and we will have considerable freedom as to how procurement is developed and used once we have left the European Union, when we will be much less tied in to the very dirigiste approach taken under the single market. The Government have done remarkably well in opening up to other suppliers, especially during this crisis, to try to get the best available equipment where necessary.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Mills

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This issue has indeed been raised in the House before and is something that the Government are aware of. I will take it up with the Department for Transport so that a fuller answer can be prepared for the hon. Lady.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

I am sure the Leader of the House will have seen the sad news today of potentially thousands of redundancies at Rolls-Royce’s Derby plant. In the light of the large amount of redundancies that might keep happening, will he be able to find time for a debate on how we can best support people to find new work after this crisis is over?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a point that will affect many of us in many constituencies. As the Chancellor explained to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, the effect of the coronavirus is of the greatest seriousness and depth, and the Government and Parliament will want to consider and debate very carefully how we recover from it. Of course, I reiterate that once we are back normally, there will be so much more time for debate.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Mills

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills]

Having a broader debate to raise people’s understanding that a diet cola is much healthier that a full-sugar cola for most people is helpful. I am not sure how much of an impact debates in this place or taxes on producers will have on people’s consumer decisions when they are in the supermarket, as those are probably based on price, promotion and their personal preferences or historical buying habits. However, the Government are right to tackle this issue.

Clause 108 seeks to tighten up the rules on VAT collection from fulfilment businesses. Globalisation has changed how businesses are structured so that people buy from them online. People then avoid paying VAT due in the UK, which is a big weakness. We have a generous turnover threshold. Most countries in Europe do not let people have their first £80,000 of turnover VAT-free—I believe the figure is now £83,000. It is right that we have that exemption, but we need to find ways of stopping people selling things on internet marketplaces and exploiting it, because there is a big revenue leak. This also makes it very hard for UK businesses resident here that are trying to comply with the rules to compete with those internet-based sales where people are not charging VAT on products on which they ought to be charging it. All the measures we can take to ensure that anyone trading here who turns over more than £80,000 has to charge VAT on the things they sell have to be right, and I look forward to seeing how those measures work and what more the Government can do on them.

Clause 120 deals with making tax digital, on which the Minister and I had an exchange earlier. I accept that we have to make tax more digital than it is and we have to get everybody filing returns online. I can see why the Government would want the information much earlier than they are getting it and would seek to remove the errors. Individuals and businesses do not want to make errors and they want to get their tax right. I am not sure how much we help them when we add 762 pages of Finance Bill every year and they have to try to work out how to comply with them. Making tax digital is the right thing to try to do, but I worry that if we rush the smallest businesses into it we will end up with the wrong outcome. I accept that businesses turning over more than £80,000 are probably already filing their VAT quarterly, doing monthly PAYE activities, presumably on a computer, and reporting those, and doing the same thing for auto-enrolment. Those businesses are probably already gathering, just about in the right format, all the information they need, and making these returns should not be unduly onerous for them. In that area, the advantages outweigh the downsides. However, I do worry about ending up with a perverse outcome.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is slightly glossing over the problems for businesses. Many of them will be paying accountants to make the filings that they are already making and this will be a further cost to them, which will bear down particularly heavily on smaller businesses.

[Nigel Mills]

Yes, and I was coming to that point about the smaller businesses. I suspect that businesses that are submitting VAT returns have already gathered all their sales data and invoice data, and will have to gather all their payroll data for their PAYE reports, and so most of the stuff they need to do this reporting has already been gathered and looked at coherently. Small businesses may do that only once a year and employ an accountant to do it, so we run the real risk of going from having an annual return prepared by a qualified person who has looked through the information and made it coherent and accurate to having a quarterly statement that the individual tries to do themselves, ending up with much less accurate information being prepared than before. We need to be careful to avoid going from a relatively reliable annual return to an unreliable four-times-a-year situation and unintentionally increasing the errors that HMRC has to look at. Instead of doing this once a year and making sure they have got it right, the risk is that people may choose not to pay an accountant or be unable to afford an accountant to do this four times a year. So there is some merit in thinking about how we phase in this measure for the smallest businesses. We could make the compulsory date a few years further away and encourage people to choose to opt in if they feel they can comply. In that way they would gain advantages from knowing that their tax bill is right and will not be shocked when they get the statement back from HMRC. There are some advantages here, so if we sell this right, businesses will choose to sign up to it and the final compulsion after a few extra years will perhaps not be as big a shock.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Mills

Monday 7th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is exactly the point I am making. That is why there has been affection for the Mayors, even from people who do not share their political sympathies. It is felt that they have a legitimacy to do what they have done. I voted against having a mayor for London, because I thought that another tier of government was quite unnecessary; we already have far too many. However, because London had a referendum and the referendum was won, there is a legitimacy. The great city that I neighbour, the city of Bristol, elected a mayor, having decided to do so through a referendum. Therefore, the people of Bristol have invested in that office and given legitimacy to it. I cannot think of anything worse than having an elected mayor covering Somerset, and I would oppose it tooth and nail. The watchwords will be, “Somerset will fight, and Somerset will be right.”

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

May I suggest something that might be even worse to my hon. Friend? It is that the outcome of the amendment might be that there is no mayor, but a new combined authority with devolved powers being run by a politburo of leaders of other councils, the policies of which people will have no direct say in.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If Madam Deputy Speaker will indulge me, I compare that with the Council of Ministers in the context of the European Union. It has democratic legitimacy derived from its constituent parts, whereas a mayor imposed, without a referendum, lacks that fundamental legitimacy. It is more like the President of the European Commission. To have a system that has an imposed mayor is to move away from legitimacy.

[Nigel Mills]

Just to continue that thought, will my hon. Friend not join me in having some concern that the people who will be taking the decisions, spending the money and exercising the power will not have been elected for that purpose, but for some very different position on a very different authority that could be on a much smaller scale?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not accept that. I am not a big-is-good advocate. I think that small can well be beautiful. The individual leaders of councils are the doughty defenders of the interests of the population that has chosen them, and they are in their way like Members of Parliament in that they represent a specific area and a specific interest, and they can combine with others to see how decisions can be made. I see no lack of democracy in a group of people coming together, each one of whom has an individual mandate. Indeed that can be a better democratic mandate than having a highfalutin mayor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. They got exactly what they wanted. They got a referendum that decided that they would remain part of the United Kingdom and then they voted for champions to come to this place and represent them constituency by constituency. That is how first past the post works. I wish that they had all voted Conservative; it is a great shame that they did not. The system worked effectively to represent what most people in Scotland wanted. Sadly, most people in Scotland did not want the Conservatives to have 56 MPs. How that aberration could have come about, I do not know, and I am sure that in time it will change.

[Nigel Mills]

It was worse in ’97.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It was indeed worse in 1997.

However, the majority in each constituency, or at least a plurality in each constituency, got exactly what they voted for and not one of the three Unionist parties in those constituencies was able to compete. That seems perfectly fair.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Mills

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I would like to expand a little on this theme. It has been said before that there are various ways of interpreting what the rule of law means. One version from the 17th century is that the rule of law is the

“supremacy of regular power as opposed to arbitrary power”.

In the case before us, rather than saying “Here is the law that applies to everyone,” we are giving the Revenue the right to rewrite the law only for certain people subject to certain permissions. That sounds like arbitrary power to me.

As a classics graduate, I thought I would dip back into history and finally find some use in having done a classics degree. Plato said:

“Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state in my view is not far off; but if the law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise.”

What we are doing here is saying that the law now has no authority, as we are giving somebody else the power to change the law, and that rather than the Government having to follow the law, the Government and its agencies can change the law retrospectively. We need to be clear that we are weighing up whether the real sin of the existing excessive, outrageous and truly abominable level of complex tax avoidance by people who should know better and should not be doing it is enough for us to risk weakening the rule of law.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the issue of the rule of law. However, I wonder whether the outrageous examples that have caused such scandal over tax avoidance were actually examples of tax evasion, and whether HMRC has in fact been very weak about enforcing the tax law as it exists now.

[Nigel Mills]

I agree with my hon. Friend that tax evasion is a crime that should be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent, but in this instance we are talking about tax avoidance.

We should be clear about the principle of what we are doing. We are saying to HMRC, “You can enforce something that is not in law.” If we are to pursue that line, we must be certain that safeguards are in place so that we do not see—metaphorically, of course—tax inspectors turning up with baseball bats, banging down the door of the taxpayer and saying “Give us money or else.” The “or else” would mean, of course, HMRC making the assessment and taking the money in any event, and the other party having to go through expensive court proceedings to try to get it back. I have worked with many tax inspectors, and clearly I do not think that any of them would literally pick up a baseball bat, but there is a risk that in any difficult situation in which there is some doubt about the application of the law, tax inspectors will start writing letters saying, “Unless you agree with my analysis, I reserve the right to apply the general anti-abuse rule, in which case”—effectively—“you will be in deep trouble.”

I think it would be very generous of Members to assume that, in all circumstances and for ever, HMRC would apply this power only to the largest, most abusive and most complicated taxpayers. I suspect that, in the experience of most Members, the Revenue has at times been a little weaker when tackling the very large taxpayers with very big pockets, and a little stronger when tackling those who are a bit smaller and a bit less sophisticated, and who may not be able to fight back as effectively. There is a real risk here. If we give the Revenue a power amounting to complete discretion in regard to whether it applies this rule to individual taxpayers, what is to prevent a large organisation from buying its tax inspector a nice lunch, and an application to apply the rule perhaps never actually being made?

I am not suggesting that that would ever happen. I have certainly never known such things to happen; tax inspectors are usually very law-abiding, and very committed to their role. However, there have been instances in which we as a Parliament have been concerned that the Revenue has not treated the largest and the smallest taxpayers equally. In this instance, we are giving the Revenue a discretionary power, and allowing it to choose when to try to use it. Are we sure that the Revenue will use that power against the people against whom we think it should be used, and not against our constituents who have not done anything particularly wrong?

It has been suggested that we are introducing too many safeguards, and questions have just been asked as to why we are imposing the burden of proof on the Revenue rather than on the taxpayer, as in every other situation. This is plainly not a normal piece of tax law. We are saying, “You may have complied with the law but we still think that you are in the wrong, so we will retrospectively pretend that the law said something different from what it actually said.” In such circumstances it must be right for the Revenue to have a duty to demonstrate that that is appropriate, rather than saying to the taxpayer, “You must prove somehow that you acted within a law that had not actually been published.” That would be nonsensical. It would be equally nonsensical to make the penalties for contravening the GAAR higher than the penalties for contravening the published law. If I flout the law and am defeated in my claim on the basis of the published law, I will rightly be subject to penalties, but for me to be subject to higher penalties when I have not actually broken the published law, which I can read, would certainly be nonsense.

I accept that the Government have undertaken long and detailed consultation and have tried to find a way of introducing a power to tackle the most aggressive, egregious and outrageous tax avoidance without creating some of the pitfalls that would worry me and, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). We do not want to create a tax system that is based not on law, but on random interpretations of various transactions by HMRC at some point in the future. I also accept that the Government have made the safeguards as reasonable as is commensurate with ensuring that the law retains some teeth.

I shall ask some questions about the drafting of the Bill later, but let me first explain why I tabled my amendments. I wanted to try to ensure that the power focused on the large, complex, aggressive, expensive schemes peddled by naughty solicitors and accountants, rather than being used as a general threat against ordinary taxpayers who had tried to structure their affairs sensibly and had chosen to conduct a transaction in a way that we could accept.

There are many innocent ways of trying to reduce a tax bill. It is possible to make a pension contribution rather than taking income as taxed earnings. I do not think any of us would object to that. The law clearly identifies it as a choice that we can all make. The owner of a company can choose whether to take a dividend, a salary or a bonus, or whether to leave the cash in the company and to be taxed on a capital gain when he leaves. I do not think many of us would say that someone who chose not to take a bonus in the year in which he sold his company but instead to allow the cash to be deemed a capital gain in order to secure a lower tax rate would be perpetrating an outrageously aggressive tax abuse arrangement of the kind that we should prevent by rewriting the law. We must be careful not to allow the Revenue to apply this power to every piece of innocent, sensible tax planning, when the only fallback will be the definition of a reasonable use of the rules.

Some people might consider it reasonable for Parliament to intend what it says it intends. When we pass a law, it is reasonable to assume that we mean what we put in that law. If we meant something different, we probably ought to have said that something different, and if it turns out that we have got it slightly wrong, we should amend the law. I accept that we have been doing that in various situations for the last God knows how many years, and have ended up with a hugely complex tax code. Every time we build in more complexity, we create more loopholes, and then we have to create even more complex rules to try to close those loopholes—and then we create more and more. Perhaps the answer is to have much shorter, simpler tax codes. I hope that, once the Government have put the GAAR on to the statute book—as I fully expect them to do—we can attempt a wholesale simplification of our tax regimes.