|
Mr. Lewis: I am delighted to say to the hon. Gentleman and to the Opposition that we agree entirely with their objectives on this matter. That is a major revelation on a hot Thursday afternoon. There are flaws in the way that the amendment is worded, but I guarantee that the effect of it will be in the regulations that are issued by HMRC about apportionment. We debated that in relation to amendments Nos. 105 and 106. While I cannot agree to the amendment's wording, its objective will be incorporated in the regulations. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Field: There is no luck in this game is there? That happens on the very last amendment that I am speaking to on this Bill. Perhaps I should take up a few other amendments if I am to have such good fortune in the Economic Secretary's eyes. Given the great assurances that he has made on the amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 45
Lloyd's underwriters: assessment
and collection of tax
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): This is not the first time that I have spoken in this Committee, but it is the first time that I have done so under your chairmanship, Mr. Cook. I take this opportunity to welcome you to the Chair.
The clause is relatively non-controversial. It has the effect of amending the administrative arrangements by which tax is collected from the Lloyd's names. It permits the tabling of regulations. Some draft notes on the proposed new regulations were helpfully circulated to the Committee by the Economic Secretary on 22 June. The only question arising from that is that the draft note circulated to the Committee states that the regulations will be laid in future and the Government are intending to consult Lloyd's over their implementation of them, which I am sure Lloyd's will welcome. When does the Economic Secretary anticipate that that consultation period is likely to begin?
Mr. Lewis: It will begin immediately. Lloyd's is, as the hon. Gentleman said, very happy and sees the measure as a logical step forward. I think that I put a little bit more pressure on my officials than they wanted me to, because the note says ''Before December''. But I shall stick with ''immediately'', because Lloyd's has welcomed the proposals and wants to get on with it in the same way that we want to ensure that the measures are implemented. We will get on with the consultation immediately.
Mr. Francois: I thank the Minister for that reply, which will be of comfort to the Committee if not his private secretary.
Column Number: 275
Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Energy Act 2004 and Health Protection Agency Act 2004
Mr. Francois: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in clause 46, page 38, line 44, at end add
(c) the pension rights and entitlements of former employees of UKAEA who are members of pension schemes that were, or are, run by UKAEA.'.
The amendment seeks to safeguard the pension rights of United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority employees. The clause is a tidying-up exercise following decisions contained in the Health Protection Agency Act 2004 and the Energy Act 2004. The Health Protection Agency Act 2004 created the new Health Protection Agency, which among other things absorbed the old National Radiological Protection Board, which will cease to exist in its current form. The clause removes certain exemptions that applied to the old NRPB.
Under the Energy Act 2004 the role of the UKAEA is also scheduled to alter and certain exemptions from income and corporation tax on its investment income are also being removed as a result of that. However, the two situations are slightly different, because UKAEA will continue with an altered remit, while the NRPB per se will cease to exist. There could be implications for the pension schemes of UKAEA employees and pensioners.
Mr. Francois: I apologise in advance to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) for having the temerity to quote from the explanatory notes.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): He is stealing my script!
Mr. Francois: I fear that the hon. Gentleman's copyright may be in danger.
The explanatory notes acknowledge the possibility that there could be implications and seek to provide some reassurance in the following terms:
''This also affects in principle pension schemes run by the Authority but in practice there is no effect because the schemes are still subject to the normal rules for pension schemes.''
That may be so, but given the general concern surrounding what has happened to pensions in the United Kingdom over the past few years, amendment No. 91 would provide extra security to UKAEA pensioners and employees by placing in the Bill the requirement that their pension entitlement should not suffer as a result of the changes, rather than tucking it away as a comment in the explanatory notes, which are not formally part of the Bill. We are seeking to upgrade the protection from the explanatory notes to the Bill.
I have here the latest edition of the UKAEA glossy newsletter, ''UKAEA Today'', which I believe has been circulated to a number of Members of Parliament including me. It talks at some length about the future development of the company but unfortunately says
Column Number: 276
little about its staff and—having read it carefully—nothing about their pensions.
We would like the Government to agree to the amendment to provide some extra security, but if they are not minded to do so at this stage—and they may not be—perhaps the Minister would provide some firm assurances that will be of comfort to the employees and pensioners of UKAEA.
2.30 pm
Rob Marris: Reading the hon. Gentleman's amendment and listening to what he says, I can understand his point. However, is he sure that his amendment would cover situations in which pension entitlements get better? The thrust of his speech is that there is a risk of adverse change, but is there a risk of beneficial change being excluded under the amendment?
Mr. Francois: The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question, but I am sure that he and the other Committee members can see the principle of what we are attempting to do. We simply seek some reassurance from the Government that pensioners will not suffer. If, on the contrary, at some point in the future they do better, that is well and good from their point of view, but we want to know that they will be adequately protected.
Mr. Lewis: It is reassuring and touching that the Conservative party is on the side of pension holders, given some of the mis-selling scandals that happened when they were in government, when there was a lack of an appropriate regulatory framework. Having said that, Mr. Cook, you will be delighted to learn that I shall not say any more on that. Instead, I say to the hon. Gentleman that he raises a valid point about the need to reassure people by placing certain things on the record, and I shall try to do so.
The clause itself operates on the tax treatment of the pension schemes only. The rights or entitlements of individuals are not affected. The exemption for the specific pension schemes was introduced many years ago, and circumstances have changed since then. The relevant point is that specific provisions granting exemptions for the UKAEA-run pension schemes that we now seek to remove are no longer necessary to provide exemption. Either the exemptions being removed do not, and will not, apply in practice to a particular pension scheme, or exemption will otherwise be provided by the general rules for pension schemes. The removal of the exemptions from the pension schemes was discussed with UKAEA and no objection was raised. Therefore, the amendment is neither relevant nor necessary. The sentiment behind it is understandable, and I hope that we have placed on record the reassurances that the hon. Gentleman sought. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Francois: I thank the Economic Secretary for not wandering off the subject, and for not going into the whole concept of mis-selling, so I will reciprocate by not talking about the £5 billion a year that the Chancellor has taken out of people's pensions.
Column Number: 277
I have listened carefully to the Economic Secretary's comments. He provided some qualified reassurance. I have no doubt that his speech will be printed in the next edition of ''UKAEA Today'' and will be read with alacrity by all its employees. The Economic Secretary entirely understood what we were trying to do, as did the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. In principle, the Economic Secretary has provided us with reassurance for those employees and pensioners, and I am sure that they will be grateful. Having achieved my aim, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
E-conveyancing
Mr. Francois: I beg to move amendment No. 92, in clause 47, page 39, line 11, after ''regulations'', insert
'laid in draft at least 90 days before such regulations would otherwise come into effect'.
We now move on to part 3, which deals with stamp taxes, and in particular stamp duty land tax. The two biggest headline matters in relation to stamp duty land tax, the increase in the basic threshold to £120,000 and the abolition of disadvantaged areas relief, were dealt with in the previous Finance Bill, which was passed during the pre-election wash-up period, so I shall resist the temptation to go over those matters again. Part 3 of this Bill deals with the remaining measures in relation to stamp duty land tax. However, some important proposals dealing with a very broadly drafted power of HMRC—not least in schedule 10—still have to be discussed.
Amendment No. 92 deals with the proposed regulations for e-conveyancing, on which I shall focus specifically as I address the amendments. In the clause stand part debate, I should like to raise some concerns, of which I have given the Minister private—albeit brief—notice, following a number of representations made to us indicating that the new electronic systems for recording and processing this type of information in relation to stamp duty land tax are not working well at present. I hope, Mr. Cook, that you see how I am trying to divide the two for the sake of clarity.
I turn to amendment No. 92. The stamp duty land tax regime, which replaced the well established stamp duty system, was introduced in late 2003. Clause 47 further amends the new stamp duty land tax regime to take account of the e-revolution by modifying the scheme to allow for the developing trend of e-conveyancing for property purchases. The Government have stated that they will produce regulations setting out in detail how this new system is designed to operate. Amendment No. 92 seeks to ensure that the regulations are available in draft format at least 90 days before they are due to come into force.
We tabled the amendment partly because the stamp duty land tax regime is generally agreed to be very much more complicated than the scheme that it
Column Number: 278
replaced. Perfectly understandably, those who are likely to be affected want something of a lead-in period when they have had sight of the new regulations, so that they can adjust to the new arrangements before they go live. To be fair to the Government, they have acknowledged that problem. Recently, the Economic Secretary wrote to Committee members on this point. I quote from his letter of 16 June:
''It is likely that e-conveyancing and e-registration processes will involve a single set of information, including information relating to stamp duty land tax, being delivered in electronic form to a central core. Thus the regulations will, for example, need to provide that delivery of stamp duty land tax information to the central core counts as valid delivery of a stamp duty land tax return.''
The Minister provided some partial reassurance on the timings for the new regulations, which are the specific topic of the amendment. In that same letter, he wrote:
''The regulations will not be made until the processes for e-conveyancing and e-registration have been developed. This may not be for some time. There will be full consultation with conveyancing practitioners and others before the regulations are made.''
In terms of adjusting to the new system, that may be of some comfort to those working in this field, particularly as it states that they will be fully consulted before the regulations come into force. We acknowledge that. However, the letter states that that may not happen ''for some time''. To try to reduce uncertainty, will the Minister say anything further about the anticipated timings? When, roughly, does he expect the draft regulations to come out? How long in principle is the consultation exercise intended to last before the regulations go live? What is his target date for their coming fully into effect? Having asked the Economic Secretary those specific questions, I look forward to what I hope will be some clear answers.
| 
