Select Committee on Treasury Minutes of Evidence


Memorandum submitted by TaxAid

1.  SUMMARY

  1.1  TaxAid is pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the Sub-committee's enquiry into Self-assessment.

  1.2  The comments in this submission are based on our practical experience and observations of how Self-assessment is working for people on low incomes who do not have professional representation.

  1.3  Our view is that Self-assessment has been a qualified success in making the tax system simpler for taxpayers and encouraging them to file and pay on time.

  1.4  There is a limit to what Self-assessment can achieve in making people's tax affairs clearer and simpler, given that it overlays an increasingly complex tax system. This is particularly evident in the difficulty which taxpayers have in calculating their tax.

  1.5  There are aspects of Self-assessment which taxpayers find confusing or understand poorly, and these are identified in the following paragraphs, together with our recommendations for improvement.

  1.6  Our recommendations are summarised in paragraph 11 below.

2.  TAXAID: ORGANISATION AND EXPERIENCE

  2.1  TaxAid is a charity which provides free and independent tax advice to persons in financial need and promotes public understanding of tax matters.

  2.2  We give advice via our telephone helpline, by correspondence and e-mail, and in face-to-face advice sessions at our office in North London. All advice is given by qualified tax professionals, many of them volunteers. We advise clients directly and also give specialist support to other advice agencies such as Citizens' Advice Bureaux. To reach a wider audience we provide information about tax on our website, and via the media. We also provide training on tax for advice agencies and the tax profession.

  2.3  The tax problems we see cover a broad spectrum of issues, but predominant are PAYE, all aspects of Self-assessment, and tax debt. The majority of the Self-assessment cases are small self-employed businesses. Our clients cannot afford to pay for professional help since their incomes are low (which we generally take to mean £15,000 gross per annum or less).

  2.4  The evidence and experience we gain in our advice work enables us to identify areas of concern and make recommendations for change. We participate in a range of Inland Revenue committees and other consultation exercises, and our relationship with the Revenue is a positive and constructive one.

  2.5  The founder and former director of TaxAid, David Brodie OBE, gave evidence to the Treasury Sub-committee in the course of its enquiry into the Inland Revenue in 1999.

  2.6  This submission has been prepared by the current technical director of TaxAid, Jane Moore, who is a chartered accountant and chartered tax adviser.

3.  SCOPE OF THIS SUBMISSION

  3.1  The comments in this submission are based on our practical experience and observation of how Self-assessment is working for our clients. These are people on low incomes and not able to afford representation by professional advisers.

  3.2  We have confined our comments to the system for individuals. We see too few corporation tax cases to enable us to comment on the system for companies.

  3.3  We have used the abbreviation "SA" throughout, to mean Self-assessment.

4.  OBJECTIVES, OPERATION AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT

  41.  When SA was introduced the stated aim was to make the tax system simpler and fairer for all concerned—taxpayers, practitioners and the Revenue—and more straightforward, clearer and fairer for taxpayers and practitioners. It was also intended to give taxpayers more control over their own tax affairs by enabling them to assess their own tax and reducing their contact with the Revenue to a minimum.

  4.2  SA is a simpler system than the previous one of different assessments on different sources, different payment dates and the use of estimated figures. This was poorly understood and led people into difficulties. There is no doubt that a clearer timetable and a single assessment is an improvement.

  4.3  The SA regime does seem to have spurred many people to submit their returns on time and has made them provide final figures rather than submit returns with "to be advised" in key sections. This has caused them to clear up old years and bring their tax affairs up to date. We do not see as many cases of multiple open years as we used to. The fixed penalty regime has played its part in achieving this state of affairs.

  4.4  However, Self-assessment can only go so far towards making the system simpler for its users. SA overlays a tax system which has become increasingly complicated, and this affects those on low incomes as well as wealthy taxpayers with complex affairs. In particular, since SA was first mooted, the number of different tax rates applying to different sources of income has proliferated. We can only repeat the plea that has been made many times and by many people; the UK tax system is in urgent need of simplification.

  4.5  SA has been of limited success in enabling people to take responsibility for their own tax affairs. Some of our clients have not grasped the ethos of SA and it is a common misconception that the Revenue check the content of tax returns when they get them. This misconception is reinforced by the wording used by the Revenue after a return has been processed, such as "I have been able to process your return without the need for amendments". The recipient may assume that the return was right and that tax year is now closed.

  Many people still rely on the Revenue to provide them with information, such as a tax calculation or help with understanding a tax issue or filling in the form. Many feel they cannot manage the form themselves, and if they cannot find a suitable source of free advice, they may be forced to find the money to pay for professional advice.

5.  SCOPE OF SELF-ASSESSMENT

  5.1  Our policy is to take people out of SA where there is no need, and no advantage, for them to be in it. The system is unnecessarily onerous for those with straightforward tax affairs whose tax can be collected some other way, or who are in a repayment position.

5.2  Tax returns issued to those outside the scope of SA

  We find that some people are sent SA returns when there is no need for them to do one. Often clients have needed an SA return at some stage, for example when they were self-employed, but this income source has now ceased. Another example would be a pensioner in receipt of gross interest from pensioners' bonds, where the untaxed income will be less than £2,500 and the tax on this could be collected via a PAYE source. We come across clients who fit these facts but are still sent a return. This might be because they were sent returns before the untaxed income limit for this treatment went up to £2,500 from £500 (the new limit applied from 1999-2000).

  Such taxpayers do not realise they could come out of SA, and because the system is automated, the Revenue do not necessarily review the need for a return before sending it out. One difficulty for the unrepresented taxpayer who thinks he does not need to do an SA return is that the return form does not explain why it has been sent. We would like to see a clear explanation, on the form itself or prominent in the notes, of the circumstances and individuals to which SA applies. Taxpayers would then understand why they have to fill in the return, or could challenge its issue and return it uncompleted. At present we find that Revenue staff can take the attitude that because a return has been sent out, it must be sent back, rather than being prepared to cancel a return which need not have been issued in the first place.

5.3  Taxpayers taken out of SA

  Where the system has identified that someone is inappropriately within SA, and rectified it by ceasing to send them returns, the taxpayer is not routinely informed of this. So one year they will get a return, and the next year not; but they do not realise that this is because they do not need to make a return. They then see the publicity about the obligation to make a return, and associated penalties, and worry that they should be doing one. This is particularly true of older, poorer pensioners.

  If the Revenue decide not to issue a return because the taxpayer is outside the criteria for being in SA, they should inform the taxpayer and not simply stop sending returns without any explanation.

5.4  Raising the limits

  The burden of Self-assessment could be removed for many people, particularly pensioners, by raising the limit for coding out untaxed income from £2,500 to perhaps £5,000. (We understand that the submission by the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (in which TaxAid participates) has made this point in more detail).

  SA is onerous for those on low incomes, particularly small businesses, whose taxable income exceeds their personal allowances by a small margin. Raising the limit for coding out would not help them. Another option would be to raise the personal allowance, to take those on the lowest incomes both out of SA and out of the tax net altogether.

6.  TAX RETURNS

  6.1  The Revenue have made a commendable effort to produce a form which caters for all aspects of the tax legislation that might affect a taxpayer. For many TaxAid clients, the majority of sections on the form do not apply and they have to fill in just a few boxes, but they are daunted by the eight page form and the questions on page 2, which employ technical terms which the average taxpayer may not understand.

6.2  The Self-employment pages

  The self-employed experience difficulty filling in the form, for two reasons. Firstly, the Self-employment pages of the return could be made simpler. For example, many people do not appreciate that their profit or loss figure must be carried down through a sequence of boxes on page SE3, or why this is needed. We have seen returns rejected where this has not been done properly.

  Secondly, many find that the most difficult aspect is preparing the accounts and understanding what can be claimed for tax. There are few sources of free advice on this. Citizens' Advice Bureaux do not advise on accounting issues unless they have a specialist on their team. The help available at Inland Revenue offices is variable, depending on the available time and expertise of the staff. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a taxpayer visiting a tax enquiry centre with the proverbial carrier bag of papers may in some cases get excellent guidance on sorting it out, in others may get very limited advice. We are aware that the Revenue are addressing this issue, and in particular have set up Business Support Teams. Our impression so far is that this initiative is to be commended but that the existence of the BSTs needs to be better promoted. We recommend a review of the sources of help available, and how these could be improved and made more accessible.

6.3  Other difficult tax return pages

  Where TaxAid clients need supplementary pages, most frequently these are the Employment and Self-employment pages. But it is not unusual for our clients to need the Land and Property, or Foreign, or Non-residence, or Capital Gains pages. Often they have just one transaction which needs to be recorded on the page in question. These supplementary pages are not user-friendly for the unrepresented individual. We realise that this is because they are attempting to cover some complex areas of tax. But more could be done to guide such taxpayers through the sections they are likely to need. The issues likely to crop up are limited in range and could be predicted and identified.

  By way of illustration, consider a pensioner with an overseas pension who is entitled to the 10 per cent deduction in arriving at the figure which is taxable. He is supposed to claim this by entering 90 per cent of the gross pension on one part of the Foreign supplementary page, and then any overseas tax suffered on a different part of this five-page supplement. Indeed it is by no means obvious from the form or notes that this 10 per cent relief exists and we have helped clients to whom it applies to get refunds.

6.4  A simplified version of the tax return

  In our view the "one size fits all" approach to tax returns should be re-examined. We recommend that a simple return form should be available for those with relatively simple tax affairs.

  As well as simplifying the basic eight page form, the supplementary pages should be simplified to cater for the issues most frequently encountered by the low income, unrepresented taxpayer. A further possibility might be to produce versions of the simple form tailored to particular customer groups such as the self-employed or pensioners; though introducing a choice of different sorts of form might introduce unnecessary complexity.

  A simpler form, the P1, did exist under the pre-SA system and there are overseas jurisdictions where this is done. For instance, in the USA, which has near-universal SA, there are simpler forms (such as the 1040EZ) for those with uncomplicated tax affairs. The trend there is more towards making it easier for people on low incomes, or with simple affairs, to comply, with easier versions of forms and the exhortation not to complete a return at all where it is unnecessary.

7.  TAX RETURN FILING: TIMETABLE AND PENALTIES

  7.1  The filing deadline of 31 January for tax returns (other than those received after 31 October) is clear enough. But the waters have been muddied following the decision in Steeden v Carver, such that a return delivered to the Revenue on 1 or 2 February may not be late, or may be late but not attract a penalty, depending on the time of day and by what method it is delivered. This is given prominence in the media close to the filing deadline, and leads to worry and confusion on the part of taxpayers. The legal framework should be re-examined to find a remedy to restore clarity.

  7.2  The penalty regime is imperfectly understood by taxpayers. The main message that gets across is that a penalty will be charged, come what may, and this causes unnecessary worry. Often people do not appreciate that the fixed penalties cannot exceed the tax outstanding at 31 January, or that a reasonable excuse can be put forward. We get a number of calls from people who have not had tax returns, and do not need to do them, but who are very worried by the publicity about the 31 January deadline and the resulting penalties.

  7.3  The 30 September "deadline" is frequently misunderstood and we get a number of calls from people who think they are liable for penalties because they have missed it. We appreciate that the Revenue place emphasis on 30 September to encourage earlier filing, which we support. But clearer communication is needed so that taxpayers realise that this is not a deadline in the way that 31 January is, and understand the benefits of filing by 30 September (particularly the coding out of underpayments).

7.4  Persistent non-filers

  There is a hard core of cases where several years' returns are outstanding, sometimes from the start of SA. We know the Revenue are investigating the reasons for this in order to tackle the problem, but we do not yet know their conclusions.

  We see a number of such cases. For some, there is no particular reason why the taxpayer has not done the returns except that they have not got around to it. We are not sure that penalties do much to make such people file their returns, though once the Revenue start to use tax-geared and daily penalties, these may prove effective.

  However, there is another group of non-filers who accept that they need to do returns and pay tax, but the task has proved too much for them. This might be because of personal difficulties in the period, or financial problems such that they cannot afford an accountant any more, or language problems, or just that they are not very bright about figures and forms. They need help but cannot afford it or do not know how to find it. The relentless piling-on of penalties is not an incentive for them to file, and indeed by the time they come to us they may be so terrified of the Revenue that they are not likely to get in touch with any tax office to explain the situation or seek help. Penalties do not encourage those who simply cannot cope with the system to file tax returns. The cases we see like this are almost always the small self-employed. We would like to see some flexibility and discretion applied by the Revenue in waiving penalties for such people when they do get their returns up to date, even if they do not have any reasonable excuse in the accepted sense.

7.5  Fixed penalty for partnership returns

  One aspect of the penalty regime that strikes us as disproportionate to the offence involved is the fixed penalty for partnership returns, and the fact that this is not reduced even if there is little or no liability. We see a number of small partnerships which have failed, and where the returns have gone in late, typically because the partners could no longer afford an accountant to deal with the closing years. Sometimes the taxpayers have not even appreciated that a separate partnership return is needed. When the returns go in, the penalties for the individuals' returns may be reduced to nil but the partnership returns lead to a sizeable penalty for each ex-partner, which often they cannot afford to pay.

8.  CALCULATION OF TAX, PAYMENT AND SURCHARGES

  8.1  The Revenue responded to criticism of the long and complex tax calculation guide, and have improved it and have (commendably) issued a short version. There is also a useful electronic tax calculator on the website, though this is only accessible via the internet filing section; we should like to see it given greater prominence.

  8.2  There is no doubt that people have difficulty calculating their tax, and this is due largely to the complexity of the rates and allowances we now have. If taxpayers are to take responsibility for their own tax, they need to understand how to calculate it, particularly if they need to budget for future payments. The system as it stands means that many people do not have the confidence or ability to do this.

  8.3  It follows that many people leave the Revenue to calculate their tax. In this connection we are concerned at the level of processing errors on returns, leading to errors in tax calculations. Unrepresented taxpayers rely on the Revenue to get things right and tend to assume that the Revenue have checked the figures when the return is processed.

  8.4  There is misunderstanding among taxpayers as to when the Revenue will produce a calculation of the tax. It is commonly thought that if the return is not filed by 30 September, the taxpayer has to complete the tax calculation guide because the Revenue will not calculate the tax. In fact the Revenue will produce the calculation at any time, they just do not guarantee to do so in time for the 31 January payment date if the return is received after 30 September. The taxpayer may then need to do their own tax calculation in order to make a correct payment. The fear of having to do the calculation can act as a disincentive to filing, if the taxpayer has missed 30 September.

8.5  Facility to pay by instalments

  A substantial part of our advice work is in relation to tax debt. Small self-employed businesses struggle to keep money aside to pay their SA liabilities. Often they have tried to save, and want to pay their tax in full at the due date, but some more pressing need means that they cannot do so. Currently, payments on account are required only six-monthly, and the smallest businesses do not make them. A scheme for those within SA to make more frequent and regular payments on account throughout the year has been proposed in the past, and is periodically revisited in discussions with the Revenue. Little progress has been made in translating it into practice.

  We realise that there are practical and legal problems to be resolved but we strongly recommend that this proposal should be given serious consideration. The facility to make regular payments on a monthly or weekly basis to the Revenue could enable many small self-employed taxpayers to keep abreast of their tax liabilities.

8.6  New Businesses

  Payment of tax can be particularly difficult for a new business on the 31 January in its second year. This is the due date for all the tax and Class 4 NIC for the first year of trading plus the first payment on account for the second year. Unless the trader has kept enough aside to meet the tax bill, which can be difficult in a start-up situation and presupposes that he can make an estimate of his future tax liabilities, he may struggle to pay in full at that date.

  In our view, a facility to pay by regular instalments would help to alleviate the problem. Another suggestion is that the Revenue should provide a calculator to help people work out how much they should put aside to cover tax. This could be available at tax enquiry centres and on the IR website. We understand that the Revenue are supportive of this idea.

8.7  Surcharges

  For those who have unpaid tax and are struggling to find ways to pay it, surcharges can be more frightening than the penalties because they are often larger than the £100 penalty and come as a surprise. The surcharge regime is not as well publicised as is the existence of late filing penalties. For those who genuinely cannot pay, not necessarily through negligence or irresponsibility on their part, the surcharge is demotivating because they cannot see any way of clearing the ever-mounting debt. The same applies to interest charges. So, for such people the surcharge is not going to be effective in making them pay.

  8.8  The IR publication Self Assessment: the legal framework (SAT2) says at paragraphs 3.108 and 3.109 that surcharges can be mitigated where an instalment arrangement is agreed or in cases of hardship. This is not widely known, certainly not by the general public, and not always by the Revenue. We suspect that taxpayers who could benefit from the mitigation of surcharges on these grounds, often do not do so because they do not know about them and do not ask, and the Revenue do not volunteer. As we understand it, the Revenue have to make an adjustment to remove a surcharge when time to pay has been agreed. We are also not sure exactly how the Revenue interpret "hardship" in applying this discretion. We would like to see the possible mitigation of surcharges better publicised and proactively considered by the Revenue in suitable cases.

9.  ENQUIRIES

  9.1  It is noticeable that small businesses with a turnover of under £15,000 per annum a target group for enquiry, and indeed the Revenue have made clear that this is their intention. We appreciate that the Revenue are concerned about the increasing number of cases where the turnover is just below £15,000 and three line accounts are filed, and that this is an area of risk which needs to be examined. But we would be interested to know what research has been done to see why the increase has occurred and what sort of business activities are involved. No doubt some are cases where profits are incorrectly stated. But there could be other reasons.

  For example, we frequently see clients who, on the facts, are employees. They are told by their "employers" that they are to treat themselves as self-employed. They often have no option but to do so. If they object or report the employer to the Revenue, they will lose their job. So they register as a business and will very likely have income below or around the £15,000 mark. Our impression is that such cases are on the increase (though we do not have statistical evidence). We speculate that this could in part be due to the complexity of the rules for distinguishing employment from self-employment, or to small employers being reluctant to take on the burden of a payroll.

  9.2  We see an increasing number of small businesses which are the subject of SA enquiries. Of course we only see cases where the enquiry has run into difficulties and not those which have been resolved satisfactorily. But we do observe a trend for Revenue enquiry officers to start a full enquiry, find some problem with the accounts or argue that the taxpayer could not have supported himself on the income declared, and then apply a business economic model to arrive at amendments to the Self-assessment. Frequently the enquiry is then extrapolated back to other years. This approach is often applied rigidly, with reluctance on the part of the Revenue to accept that the taxpayer might have had circumstances which caused his figures to depart from the business economic model. Unrepresented taxpayers facing an enquiry often feel intimidated and hopelessly out of their depth, and find it hard to refute the Revenue's assertions.

  It is hard to escape the conclusion that small businesses can be an easy target for enquiry work. We would question whether the selection criteria and performance measures for enquiry work have led to an undue concentration on smaller cases when the efforts of staff could more effectively be concentrated elsewhere. The additional tax collected is usually substantial from the taxpayer's point of view but small in relation to the time and effort invested by the Revenue officer, especially if the taxpayer cannot pay it anyway.

  Having said that, we know the Revenue accept the need to provide support and information to unrepresented taxpayers undergoing an enquiry. We have found them very interested in and receptive to suggestions in this area. We are aware that changes are being made with regard to targets and performance measures in service delivery including enquiry work.

10.  INLAND REVENUE SUPPORT FOR TAXPAYERS

10.1  Inland Revenue structure

  When Self-assessment was introduced, it was described as central to the Change Programme of the Revenue, which included reorganising its office structure to bring together assessment and collection functions. Since then the Revenue has incorporated the National Insurance Contributions Office, taken on the administration of tax credits and the National Minimum Wage, and will shortly take on the administration of Child Benefit. It is currently in the throes of reorganising into the Area Management structure.

  We have a concern that the Revenue is changing too fast and taking on too much, which means that resources are stretched to deliver all the services for which it is responsible.

  The Area Management structure, with Receivables Management as a separate business stream, would not appear to be bringing together collection and assessment in the way envisaged back in 1995; quite the contrary. It is too early to say whether the new structure will improve the operation of SA.

  A further consequence of restructuring is that a taxpayer no longer has one person whom he can contact about his affairs. Both agents and taxpayers alike are struggling to know who best to contact and at which office. Again, we are assured that matters will become clearer, and service better, once Area Management has bedded down. We feel it would be helpful at this stage for the Revenue to publish more information about the new office and area structure and give clear guidance to assist their customers in contacting the right person.

10.2  Quality of information and advice

  Unrepresented taxpayers rely on the Revenue for information and support in coping with the tax system. It is crucial that good quality guidance should be available for this group, targeted to their needs. In this connection, we are aware that the Revenue are reviewing the nature of the customer support they provide and how it is delivered, and we have found them receptive to comment and suggestions for improvement.

  In the specific context of SA, we note that the SA series leaflets have not been updated since SA first came in. We would recommend these be revised incorporate the experience of five years' of SA (and to remove the Hector the Inspector motif).

11.  SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

  4.4  Simplification of the tax system is needed to achieve clarity and simplicity for its users.

  4.5  The wording used by the Revenue to acknowledge that a return has been input should make it clear that the return has been processed but not checked for correctness.

  5.2  We would like to see a clear explanation, on the SA form itself or prominent in the notes, of the circumstances and individuals to which SA applies. Taxpayers would then understand why they have to fill in the return, or could challenge its issue and return it uncompleted.

  5.3  If the Revenue decide not to issue a return because the taxpayer is outside the criteria for being in SA, they should inform the taxpayer and not simply stop sending returns without any explanation.

  5.4  The burden of Self-assessment could be removed for many people, particularly pensioners, by raising the trigger point for the issue of a SA return from £2,500 of untaxed income to perhaps £5,000.

  5.4  Another option would be to raise the personal allowance, to take those on the lowest incomes both out of SA and out of the tax net altogether.

  6.2  The Self-employment pages of the SA return could be made simpler and easier to fill in correctly.

  6.2  We recommend a review of the sources of help available to small self-employed businesses who need advice on accounts and tax, to identify how these could be improved and made more accessible. In particular, the existence of the Business Support Teams should be better promoted.

  6.3  Supplementary pages to the SA return such as the Foreign, Non-residence, and Capital Gains pages, are not user-friendly for the unrepresented individual. More could be done to guide such taxpayers through the sections they are likely to need. The issues likely to crop up are limited in range and could be predicted and identified.

  6.4  The "one size fits all" approach to tax returns should be re-examined. We recommend that a simple return form should be available for those with relatively simple tax affairs.

  7.1  The clarity of 31 January as the deadline for filing tax returns has become confused following Steeden v Carver, and the legal framework surrounding the 31 January deadline should be re-examined to find a remedy.

  7.2  Clearer communication is necessary so that taxpayers understand when late filing penalties arise, and when they do not, and the significant of the 30 September date.

  7.4  Some non-filers are years in arrears with their tax returns because they are simply unable to cope with the system, often coupled with personal or business difficulties. We would like to see some flexibility and discretion applied by the Revenue in waiving penalties for such people when they do get their returns up to date, even if they do not have any reasonable excuse in the accepted sense.

  7.5  Consideration should be given to bringing the late filing penalty regime for partnerships into line with that for individuals.

  8.1  We recommend that greater prominence is given to the electronic version of the tax calculation on the IR website.

  8.2  The existing rates and structure of income tax should be simplified so that people can more easily understand how to calculate their own tax.

  8.3  Greater accuracy is needed in processing tax returns so that people can rely on the output.

  8.5  We strongly recommend that a proposed scheme for those within SA to make regular payments on account throughout the year should be given serious consideration. The facility to make regular payments on a monthly or weekly basis to the Revenue could enable many small self-employed taxpayers to keep abreast of their tax liabilities.

  8.6  Another facility to help the newly self-employed would be for the Revenue to provide a calculator to help people work out how much they should put aside to cover tax in their first years. This could be available at tax enquiry centres and on the IR website.

  8.8  We would like to see the possible mitigation of surcharges (mentioned in paragraphs 3.108 and 3.109 of SAT2) better publicised and proactively considered by the Revenue in suitable cases.

  9.1  In the context of enquiries, research is needed to understand why the level of self-employed businesses reporting turnover just below £15,000 is on the increase.

  9.2  Enquiries—excessive selection of businesses with turnover of below £15,000. We would question whether the selection criteria and performance measures for enquiry work have led to an undue concentration on smaller cases (those with turnover under £15,000), when the efforts of staff could more effectively be concentrated elsewhere.

  10.1  We feel it would be helpful at this stage for the Revenue to publish more information about their new office and area structure and give clear guidance to assist their customers in contacting the right person.

  10.2  Unrepresented taxpayers rely on the Revenue for information and support in coping with the tax system. It is crucial that good quality guidance should be available for this group, targeted to their needs.

  10.2  The SA series leaflets should be revised to incorporate the experience of five years of SA (and to remove the Hector the Inspector motif).

TaxAid

22 February 2002


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 13 June 2002