Finance Bill

I welcome the transitional dates in the amendments in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The nationally known firm of independent financial advisers, Torquil Clark, is based in my constituency. Indeed, its office is about 100 m from my office and I know it quite well. In December I met people from that firm to discuss the announcement made in the pre-Budget report on the ending of tax relief on pension term assurance, and one of the things that they were concerned about was the suddenness of the transition. The amendments soften that somewhat, and they are welcome. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) said that the transitional dates were not revealed until after this year’s Budget, and he referred to April, but in fact they were revealed on 21 March, in paragraphs 3 to 5 on page 47 of the Budget notes. I think that the Government are right to close the loophole, and that is why I have just voted in favour of clause 67, which will introduce schedule 18 if we agree to that schedule, as I expect we will. The amendments are helpful, as they set out the dates. Government amendment No. 9 includes what I regard as a major drafting error: the sub-paragraph that it inserts starts with the word ““But””, and it should not do so. I hope that on Report, the Government will remove the word. In addition, in the third line of the amendment, the verb ““was”” is used, but I think that the verb is conditional and should take the subjunctive form. It should therefore be ““were””, not ““was””, and I hope that the Government will look at that on Report. However, I welcome the amendments.