Implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts
Debate between Stephen Phillips and Nigel Mills
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I know this will come as a shock, Mr Speaker, but I rise to present a petition in the same terms as those of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South on behalf of very many residents of the constituency of Sleaford and North Hykeham.
The Petition of the residents of Sleaford and North Hykeham.
[P001831]
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 680 residents of Amber Valley in the same terms as the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South.
The Petition of residents of Amber Valley.
[P001772]
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Debate between Stephen Phillips and Nigel Mills(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Mills
The hon. Lady is right. I have not sought to defend those who peddle tax avoidance schemes. It is probably human nature for us all to try to minimise our liabilities. I personally think that we should try to adjust our tax regimes so that they get much closer to taxing the real profit that is declared, rather than allowing a collection of reliefs, allowances, incentives and so forth to provide scope for manipulation of the various circumstances in which people find themselves. However, I accept that people would still try to get round the simplest tax code in the world, and that we would need provisions to stop them.
My amendments are designed to ensure that, if the Revenue uses this power, it uses it to deal with the largest, most outrageous schemes. We do not want it to go around threatening all the small taxpayers who are simply trying to go about their way of life. I was not convinced that the wording of the Bill, and certainly not the wording proposed by the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, would meet those concerns. I tried to provide a de minimis: the tax at stake would have to be above a certain amount before the rules could be applied. That would provide certainty, ensuring that the vast majority of taxpayers would not be subject to some retrospective, random rewriting of the law.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and is advancing a compelling argument for his de minimis principle. The problem is, in my view, that it is a compelling argument for the exclusion of part 5 of the Bill, and that the de minimis principle that he seeks to introduce ignores the other principles that he has advocated. Does he agree with that?
Nigel Mills
Yes, I do. Various Members have expressed concern about the principle before. I think we must accept that the House has concluded that the only way of tackling the problem of excessive outrageous tax avoidance is to risk the principle of the reading of the rule of law, and to be satisfied that a relatively minor version is what is needed to tackle tax avoidance. I am not sure I would have come to the same conclusion. The previous Government looked at a general anti-avoidance rule about a decade ago, and having consulted for quite a while and made various drafts, they decided not to proceed, probably because of the same concerns that my hon. and learned Friend has set out. You perhaps remember those days and that consultation, Ms Primarolo.