 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Finance |
Finance Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan
Sandall, James Davies, Committee
Clerks
† attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 6 May 2008(Afternoon)[Frank Cook in the Chair]Finance Bill(Except clauses 3, 5, 6, 15, 21, 49, 90 and 117 and new clauses amending section 74 of the Finance Act 2003)Clause 2Personal
allowances for those aged 65 and
over
Question
proposed [
this day
]
, That the clause stand
part of the
Bill.
4.30
pm
Question
again
proposed.
The
Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Kennedy):
I
welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Cook. I was on the point
of making a final response to the hon. Member for Runnymede and
Weybridge. He asked two detailed questions on the clawback for the
higher amounts of personal allowances for individuals aged 65 and
above, and at what points the higher amounts of personal allowances
were taken away. He was also looking for a signpost to where the
measures could be
found.
The income
limit for the taper for higher amounts of personal allowance for
individuals aged 65 and above is subject to an annual statutory
increase by indexation, as is provided by paragraph 57(1)(h) of the
Income Tax Act 2007—hon. Members can see that I have the detail.
For 2007-08, the limit is £20,900, as set in the Income Tax
(Indexation) (No.2) Order 2006, and for 2008-09, the limit is
£21,800.
On
the hon. Gentleman’s second question, for 2008-09, the points at
which the higher personal allowance for individuals is tapered away is
£28,990 for individuals aged 65 to 74, and £29,290 for
individuals aged 75 and over. If further details are admitted, I would
be more than happy to return to the matter, and certainly to write to
the Committee when it has had time to consider
Hansard.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 2
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule 1Abolition
of starting and savings rates and creation of starting rate for
savings
Mr.
Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con): I beg to
move amendment No. 11, in
schedule 1, page 98, leave out lines 6 to
8.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 12, in schedule 1, page 98, line 13, at end
insert—
‘(6) The starting
rate for savings is to be applied only on the making of a
claim.’.
Mr.
Hammond:
The schedule deals with the detailed
implementation of clause 3, which we already discussed in the Committee
of the whole House. I shall speak to the amendments separately, and to
amendment No. 12 first, because it is the simpler of the two.
By tabling
amendment No. 12, I seek clarification from the Government and ask them
to make explicit what is implicit in the arrangements, namely, that the
starting rate for savings will be available only on the basis of claim.
In other words, savers will see tax deducted at source at 20 per cent.,
and will then have to claim back to recover the difference
between the starting rate for savings and the basic rate that has been
deducted.
Proposed new
section 7 of the Income Tax Act 2007, titled, “The starting rate
for savings”, will mainly benefit low income savers. I do not
believe that anybody has a problem with the principle of the measure,
but the concern is that many people who are intended to benefit from it
will not routinely make income tax returns or be familiar with the
process of making a claim for recovery of overpaid tax on form R40.
Many people, even when they become aware of the process, may feel that
it involves a lot of bureaucracy for what might be a relatively small
amount. What assessment have the Government made of the situation with
regard to the likely take-up of the starting rate for savings on the
basis that a claim will have to be made? The amendment would include in
the Bill a reference to the fact that the relief is available only on
the basis of a claim, for the sake of clarification. What steps do the
Government intend to take in order to increase awareness of the
starting rate for savings and the process by which it has to be
claimed? There will be some quite complex calculations to be
done.
I have a note
here from one of the major accountancy firms—an internal
training note setting out examples of how the starting rate for savings
will work for different groups of individuals. I will just give the
Committee a flavour of some of the complexity. Example 6 is:
“Taxpayer aged 74,
married, earned income £12,000, savings income £3,000.
Earned income exceeds personal allowance by £2,970, so according
to rules, no 10% band on savings income allowed. Therefore all taxed at
20%. So tax on pension income equals £594. Add tax on savings at
20% of £600. Total tax due: £1,194. But married
couples’ allowance reduces tax bill by £653, so tax bill
only £541. Therefore, this is likely to be a repayment case at
year end as taxpayer would fail the R85 registration test for gross
interest.”
Now we are
not talking here about a multinational corporation. We are talking
about a 74-year-old taxpayer, with an earned income of £12,000
and a savings income of £3,000—someone with quite modest
affairs, unlikely to be professionally advised and likely to do his own
tax return. I am sure the Minister will agree with me that, in the case
of that particular taxpayer, it is quite likely that he would either
fail to recognise that he is entitled to the relief, or at some point
in that calculation, would simply give up and decide that life is too
short and it is not worth bothering to pursue the
claim.
John
Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con): Does my hon. Friend
agree that, following his earlier comments about incentives to save,
anything which is this complicated would make it virtually impossible
for the man in the street to understand whether or not he was going to
be better off with savings and inevitably reduce incentives to save and
the rate of
saving?
Mr.
Hammond:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one
of the great problems as the Government wrestle with the micro-tuning
of the tax relief and support system. I suspect that we will see some
more of this when we hear the Government’s intended response to
the compensation proposals for the loss of the 10p rate. There tends to
be a complex process around them, and it tends to become more and more
difficult for individuals to identify whether or not they are eligible
for reliefs and how they go about claiming them. It is that combination
of complexity of calculation, the existing culture of low take-up and
the very low absolute value of claims that often means that very few
will actually benefit. That is why it seems to us on this side that
this arrangement is unlikely significantly to mitigate the loss of the
main 10p rate. Therefore, it will not be a major part of the package
that the Government—we hear—are going to put together as
a
solution.
Mr.
Jeremy Browne (Taunton) (LD): Is it not illustrative of
precisely the point he is making that the Government almost invariably
budget for less than 100 per cent. take-up when they introduce measures
of this
type?
Mr.
Hammond:
Indeed it is, and I was about to ask the Minister
what take-up is budgeted for in the figures that have been put before
the House, and on what basis the Treasury’s costing of this
measure has been done. We know that we get different levels of take-up
in different parts of the system. This measure is likely to be
particularly important to elderly people. We know that pension credit
take-up is low, so we know that we are dealing with a group of people
who, typically, are disinclined to take up benefits or tax relief even
when they are available to them. That is a very important point for the
Committee to consider in thinking about how this measure will work in
practice.
Amendment
No. 11 seeks to leave out lines six to eight on page 120. This is very
much a probing amendment. We are trying to understand what the
Government are seeking to do. There are two questions arising from the
deleted lines. Lines six to eight effectively replace subsection (2) of
section 12 in the Income Tax Act 2007. The words in that Act
are:
“(2) This
is subject
to—
Chapters
3 to 6 of Part 9 (which provide for some income of trustees to be
charged at the dividend trust rate or at the trust
rate),
section
504(3)(treatment of income of unauthorised unit trust), and
any other provisions
of the Income Tax Acts (apart from sections 10 and 11) which provide
for Income to be charged at different rates of income tax in some
circumstances.”
The Bill
before us today simply refers to “any provisions of the Income
Tax Acts”, so deleting all reference to chapters three to six of
part nine and section 504(3). It goes on to refer specifically to
“an individual”, so clearly the intention is that the
provision of a starting rate for savings is denied to trustees, and is
available only to individuals.
I would therefore be grateful
if the Minister would explain to the Committee why that decision has
been taken, and what impact the exclusion of trustees will have on
small trusts. Is there any reason in equity why trusts should not be
entitled to the same relief that is available to individuals. Once
again, this is a stealth tax on trusts. It has been slipped into the
small print here without any fanfare or announcement, and I think that
the Committee is entitled to an explanation from the Minister. After
all, the income of trustees is eligible under the current
regime—the pre-Finance Bill 2008 regime—for the savings
rate, and is now not eligible for the starting rate for savings. That
seems illogical and inequitable, so I would be grateful for the
Minister’s comments on
that.
The second part
of the inserted subsection makes the starting rate of savings subject
to any other provisions of the 2007 Act. I would just like to hear
clearly from the Minister that this is not a denial of starting rate
for savings in any other cases, or a protection of a more generous
treatment. I am not expressing myself terribly well. It is unclear to
me whether the words in this section are intended to deny privileged
treatment to some individuals, or to protect an otherwise more
privileged treatment. Where we see references to provisions
elsewhere,
“which provide
for income of an individual to be charged at different rates of income
tax in some
circumstances”,
the
explanatory notes refer to the lower rate for dividends. Are there any
other circumstances in which this provision will be disapplied in order
to apply a provision elsewhere, in other statutes? In those cases, are
we denying a more favourable treatment by denying the starting rate for
savings; or are we protecting a treatment that is more favourable than
the starting rate for savings? I hope that that is clear. Will the
Minister tell us whether there are circumstances, other than dividends
taxed at the dividend ordinary rate, in which the provision of this
subsection
bite?
4.45
pm
Jane
Kennedy:
This schedule, together with schedule 3, removes
the 10 per cent. starting rate on income tax for non-savings
income, it abolishes the now unnecessary savings rate of 20 per
cent.—I shall say in a moment why that is sensible—and it
creates a new starting rate of 10 per cent. for savings income, which
effectively reverts to the way it was. It also makes consequential
amendments to other legislation affected by the changes.
For many years, savings income
has been taxed at 10 per cent., 20 per cent. and 40 per
cent. Before this year, the income tax system taxed non-savings income
at 10 per cent., 22 per cent. and 40 per cent. The 40 per cent. band
therefore applies to savings and non-savings income. A separate rate of
20 per cent. existed that applied only to savings. Since the new
non-savings income tax rates are 20 per cent. and 40 per cent., the
special savings rate is no longer necessary, as the 20 per cent. band
applies also to savings income. However, as the 10 per cent. starting
rate has been abolished, it is necessary to introduce a new provision
to ensure that a 10 per cent. starting rate for savings income is
available. That is the purpose of the changes that we are
making.
Mr.
Hammond:
Is the 20 per cent. rate that existed under the
previous arrangement available to
trustees?
Jane
Kennedy:
I will come to that in a moment. I have some
information that will help, but it is a complex area and I want first
to deal with the amendments. They are fair and raise sensible points
about the complexity of the arrangements that people have to make when
claiming tax rebates.
Stewart
Hosie (Dundee, East) (SNP): I wish for a bit more clarity.
The Minister said that the 10 per cent. rate would still be available
for savings. However, if I understand it correctly, that is not simply
up to the limit of £2,320. If the non-savings taxable income
exceeds that starting rate limit, the 10 per cent. rate does not apply;
it is taxed at 20 per cent. Am I
correct?
Jane
Kennedy:
I am not sure that I entirely understand the
question. There are a number of bands of income, and there are rules
about which are selected first before the thresholds apply. It depends
on whether it is earned income or savings
income.
Jane
Kennedy:
I appreciate that, but I am trying to answer the
question. If it helps, he is correct.
The
hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge tabled two amendments. He and I
both recognise the importance of savings in providing people with
independence throughout their lives. Savings also provide security
should things go wrong, and comfort in retirement. The Government want
more people to enjoy those benefits. About 3 million people, mostly
those on low incomes, are eligible for the 10 per cent. rate on savings
income. We maintained the savings rate in order to continue to reward
saving; we also make available vehicles to encourage others to save,
including individual savings accounts and the child trust
fund.
I shall deal
first with amendment No. 11. I wanted to hear what the hon. Gentleman
had to say on both amendments, because it was difficult to understand
their purpose. As I understand it, having heard him and read the
amendments, amendment No. 11 would effectively remove a signpost to
provisions that apply different rates of tax to certain types of income
falling within the starting rate limit for savings, particularly
dividend income, which is taxable at special rates. Where dividend
income falls within the basic rate band, it is taxable at the 10 per
cent. dividend ordinary rate, as I said earlier.
The only
result of removing the signpost would be to create confusion and
uncertainty about which rate of tax applies where there are special
rates. It might also be seen as seeking to widen the availability of
the 10 per cent. starting rate for savings beyond savings income,
creating further uncertainty. Therefore, I see no benefit in the
amendment.
Mr.
Hammond:
I understand what the Financial Secretary is
saying about the lower dividend rate. She says that the amendment would
remove a signpost and thereby reduce the clarity. If the signpost that
I propose to remove said, “This does not apply where the lower
dividend rate applies”, I would agree with her, but it does not.
It says that it does not apply where individuals are to be
“charged at different rates of
income tax in some circumstances.”
Are there any circumstances
other than the lower dividend rate in which that will not apply, and if
so, what are they and what will be the impact on taxpayers in those
circumstances?
Jane
Kennedy:
No new circumstances are being introduced as part
of these changes, so no further people will be caught in the way that
the hon. Gentleman appears to fear they might be. The new starting rate
for savings protects the position of individuals and does not deny
anyone a 10 per cent. rate of income tax. In other words, nothing is
broadly changing the arrangements that are already in place. He asked
about the position of trustees and whether the starting rate for
savings was not available for trusts. The starting rate for savings is
for individuals. Trustees are not individuals, so the rate for trusts
are unchanged, and that is covered by section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
He asked me about the rate for trustees, and I can confirm that 20 per
cent. is the rate.
Amendment No. 12
would include an additional provision for the starting rate for
savings.
Mr.
Hammond:
I am not sure that I have understood what the
Minister said. Was she confirming that the 20 per cent.
savings rate is available to trustees, but that the 10 per cent.
starting rate for savings will not be available to trustees? If that is
the case, can she explain to the Committee why the treatment of
trustees has
changed?
Jane
Kennedy:
I am not aware that there is a change in the
treatment of trustees. We are talking about the savings rate as it
applies to individual taxpayers, as opposed to trustees. That is the
advice, as I have it, and I will want to test that against the hon.
Gentleman’s further challenge to it. That is certainly my
understanding of the position.
On amendment No. 12, I hear
what the hon. Gentleman says about the complexity and about the need
for an individual to make a formal claim. The amendment seeks to
include the additional provision from the starting rate for savings, so
that it would be applied only where such a formal claim is made.
Individuals are not required to claim a rate of tax. The phrase
“formal claim” has a particular meaning. The rates of tax
that apply are statutory and mandatory. However, the starting rate of
savings only applies to a relatively small number of individuals whose
non-savings income does not exceed their personal allowances, plus
£2,320. Given that relatively unusual combination of different
incomes, it is not possible for Her Majesty’s Revenue and
Customs to put in place a way of deducting 10 per cent. income at
source from savings income that is liable at that
rate.
Stewart
Hosie:
I appreciate the complexity of the issues
that the Minister is describing, but I am at a loss on dividend income,
which is taxed at 10 per cent. up to the basic rate and at 32.5 per
cent. thereafter. There is no abolition of the 10p rate if the dividend
income exceeds the basic rate at which it would apply, which is the
case with savings income. I am not sure why that can be achieved with
dividends, but not with non-dividend savings
income.
Jane
Kennedy:
Dividends are subject to tax at both the
corporate and shareholder level, but the shareholder is provided with a
10 per cent. non-payable tax credit to reduce the second layer of tax
in recognition of the tax already paid at the corporate level. So
dividend income is treated differently. The initial corporate tax is
therefore partly mitigated by the tax credit. Individuals are entitled
to the 10p rate on all or some of their savings income and will receive
it when they complete a self-assessment tax return or if they claim a
repayment on an informal claim form.
Mr.
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Is not the problem that
most people in such a situation will not fill in self-assessment tax
returns, which are extremely complicated? Most people will not
bother.
Jane
Kennedy:
I am not advised that that would apply to most
people, and I want to answer some of the specific questions on this
point. Those eligible for the 10 per cent. rate claim back their money
from HMRC using R40 forms, which, along with a comprehensive guide, are
published on the HMRC website, but they are also available through the
Directgov website. HMRC has promoted, and will continue to promote, the
ability to claim through communications with taxpayers, advertising and
its website. As I have said, it has recently provided further guidance
on the new savings starting rate on its website, and it publishes a
detailed leaflet available to banks and building societies to give to
their customers. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge would
probably reply, “That is fine, as long as the guidance is
clear.”
Mr.
Hammond:
The Committee will understand my concern. It is
great to put guidance on websites, but some of the people about whom we
are talking might not pursue such matters vigorously. For example,
older people who might be unfamiliar with the world of Government
websites—a fascinating subject in itself—might not pursue
them. However, I should like to respond to the Minister on a specific
point: a few moments ago, she said that HMRC cannot give that relief at
source for a variety of reasons. However, I understand that, under the
R85 procedure, it is possible for some classes of individual to have
that rate applied to them at source. For the Committee’s
benefit, will she clarify what R85 is and how it
works?
Jane
Kennedy:
A very small number of people qualify for
the rebate—if we want to call it that. They will be those whose
incomes fall below the threshold and whose savings income, therefore,
will be taken into account. A few people will have a very small savings
income representing their entire income. The main way in which the
claim is made is through the R40 form. I shall want to review the
availability of the advice and
consider whether HMRC can do more to promote the take-up of the benefit
through banks and building societies, which pay interest to individuals
subject to the tax. The R85 form is for non-taxpayers. If the hon.
Gentleman wants further detailed information on how that works, I can
provide it to him, and I would supply a copy to the
Committee.
Mr.
Hammond:
I understand why the Government are reluctant to
go down that route, but it strikes me that there are two ways of doing
it—either give the relief automatically, then claim it back, or
do not give the relief
automatically.
5
pm
Sitting
suspended for Division
s
in the
House.
5.30
pm
On
resuming—
Jane
Kennedy:
I was finishing my response to the amendments and
was particularly interested to know the thinking behind amendment No.
12 of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I have made note of
some of his suggestions. I hope to answer a couple of questions to his
assistance. He was probing around the issue of HMRC and asked why
arrangements cannot be made for tax to be deducted at source. I said
that that was because, generally, the payment of interest on savings is
subject to tax for a small group of taxpayers. Bank and building
societies deduct tax at 20 per cent. It is not possible for banks to
predict a customer’s income and to deduct at 10 per cent. or,
indeed, at 40 per cent., so the R85 form to which the hon. Gentleman
referred is used by non-taxpayers to self-certify that they are
non-taxpayers. In those circumstances, the bank does not deduct the tax
at
source.
Mr.
Hammond:
I have just remembered what I was saying to the
Minister in my intervention. The way in which to ensure that people
receive the relief would not be to deduct 10 per cent. at source and
then recover the additional amounts. We would not have the problem of
potentially large numbers of people failing to claim the relief to
which they were entitled. I am sure that the right hon. Lady can also
imagine the cacophony of objection to such a suggestion from HMRC, but
it is important that we recognise that we have two players of unequal
strength: on the one hand, there is HMRC and, on the other hand, is the
individual low-income taxpayer. Matters are so structured that the
taxpayer must do all the running to get what he is entitled to, while
it should be possible, at least in theory, to structure matters the
other way round, so that HMRC had to do the running to recover the
additional tax when it was due.
Jane
Kennedy:
How would the banks distinguish whose
savings income was to be taxed at 10 per cent. or otherwise? We would
get into the situation where the banks could not distinguish between
those who owed more tax because their thresholds did not apply and were
not part of the small group that was entitled to a rebate. We would
have just as difficult a relationship between HMRC and the taxpayer, as
HMRC sought to recover the tax that it was
owed.
Mr.
Hammond:
I do not seek to play down the difficulties, but
it could be possible to have a self-certification regime along the
lines of that outlined by the right hon. Lady for non-taxpayers.
Presumably, someone who self-certifies as a non-taxpayer will be
subject to HMRC compliance checks and will be required to pay tax
retrospectively if it turns out that they were, in fact, liable to pay
tax on the amount. It is a theoretical possibility. I am seeking to
help her, because I assume that she shares our objective of ensuring
maximum take-up of the relief by those who are entitled to it. That is
perhaps a thought to throw into the
pot.
Jane
Kennedy:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we share the
same objective, although there is a problem with tackling the issue
along the lines that he suggested. Although it is theoretically
possible, it would draw more people into having to make a
self-assessment return than applies at the moment. Furthermore, it is
not advisable for a bank or building society to accept a
taxpayer’s self-certification that they are in a particular
band. That would put a greater administrative burden on banks and
building societies. Would they be responsible for determining whether
the individual had provided a correct self-certified assessment? Where
does the responsibility lie? I believe that banks and building
societies would be somewhat nervous of that approach. As he suggests,
it is theoretically possible. However, it is probably better to
encourage HMRC to advertise to people who are in receipt of savings
income that such relief is available and seek the good offices of banks
and building societies to do
that.
Amendment No. 12
seems to make no change to the long-established position, other than to
put the requirement for a formal claim on the statute book. I therefore
fail to see any benefit in either of the amendments that the hon.
Gentleman has proposed. I hope that they were proposed as probing
amendments to get on the record some of the Government’s
thinking and how HMRC is dealing with the issues that he rightly
raises.
I hope that
members of the Committee will recognise that the 10p rate is a valuable
aid to saving for those on low incomes. I assure hon. Members that the
rules have not changed. Individuals who had savings income taxable at
the 10p starting rate in 2007-08 are likely to have savings income
taxable at the same rate in the next
year.
Mr.
Hammond:
If I understand the Minister correctly, she is
saying that those who had income taxable at the starting rate in
2007-08 are likely to have income taxable at the starting rate for
savings in 2008-09. That is not my understanding, for the very reason
that the hon. Member for Dundee, East has set out in the debate. The
starting rate for savings is applicable only to the first £2,350
of savings income, where the individual does not have other earnings up
to the personal allowance limit. Many people who would have benefited
from the 10p income tax rate and who have savings income will not
benefit from the starting rate for savings because the savings income
will be taken as the top tranche of income. I think that that is
correct. The Financial Secretary will correct me if I am
wrong.
Jane
Kennedy:
Notwithstanding the intervention that the hon.
Member for Dundee, East made earlier, the description that the hon.
Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has just given is not how I
understand the position. I will double check that because I understand
that the rules have not changed. Individuals who had savings income
taxable at the 10 per cent. starting rate for 2007-08 are likely to
have savings income taxable at the 10 per cent. starting rate in
2008-09.
Stewart
Hosie:
That is true only in circumstances where they do
not earn any money that would accrue normal taxation. As soon as they
breach the threshold, the 10p rate goes, even up to £2,320, and
they pay at the higher rate thereafter. For the record, that is in
table A3 of the Red
Book.
Jane
Kennedy:
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right. We
are not in contradiction. Having had a useful debate about this group
of proposals, I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge
will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Hammond:
The Minister is correct that the amendments were
tabled as probing amendments. I said explicitly that amendment No. 12
was tabled with a view to seeking clarification from the Government. I
should like to place on the record that any suggestion that the
introduction, by way of amendment, of an explicit requirement to make a
claim was not intended to change the current situation, but merely to
make explicit the current situation and to probe the Minister on the
consequences.
On
that last point, I think I am right in saying that we do not disagree,
but the Minister was in danger at one point of inadvertently
misrepresenting the situation. Somebody who earned £12,235 last
year, of which £10,000 was earned and £2,235 was savings
income, would have paid 10 per cent. on part of their income. That
person—again earning £10,000 and having £2,235 of
savings income—will not, as I understand it, pay 10 per cent. on
any of their income this year. So that it is a significant
change.
I did not
quite hear the Minister clarify two points in her response. I asked her
what the Treasury’s estimate of the uptake of the relief is.
This goes to the central point that we have been discussing: what
percentage of people entitled to the relief does the Treasury expect to
claim and has it used as the basis of its modelling of the likely cost
of the measure? The Minister did not answer that question. Although I
accept the difficulties of devising a system that gives the relief
automatically, in the absence of an indication of what the expected
uptake is, it is very difficult to see whether this is a real, big
problem or just a real, small problem. It would have been helpful if
the Minister had given us some figures for the Treasury’s
uptake.
I am also
still entirely missing clarification on whether any other form of
savings income, other than dividend income, will not be subject to the
starting rate for the savings taxation regime. The Minister was
slightly ambiguous in her answer. She made clear that dividend income
was such a form of income. However, the Committee would find it
interesting and useful to know what other form of savings income, if
there is any, will not be subject to the starting rate for savings.
I do not know whether the Minister wishes to intervene or
whether she may seek to catch your eye again, Mr.
Cook.
Jane
Kennedy:
The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to
say that I would be happy to provide the information, and I will do so
in writing if he agrees. As some detail is involved, I think that he
would find it helpful if I sent it in
writing.
Mr.
Hammond:
I am grateful to the Minister for that, and given
that these are probing amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed
to.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 7 May 2008 |