Finance Bill

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in clause 81, page 56, line 7, leave out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reasonable grounds for believing’. I should like to incorporate the few remarks that I have to make in the clause stand part debate with my comments on the amendment, tabled by me and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). Clauses 81 to 84 amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and I want to place it on the record that it was argued forcefully from our Benches at the time that powers should be extended beyond the police to other arresting authorities, including Customs and Excise. In relation to the 1984 Act, the Bill seeks to reflect the fact that the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have since merged. Having said that, we need to be clear about what powers HMRC will take on, and the context in which they will be used. The need to amend the Act must not result in some kind of mission creep in relation to its scope. Amendment No. 19 flags up an issue that I will flag up again in clause 96 and schedule 24, which deal with penalties issued by HMRC for errors. The issue relates to the burden of proof for action that can be taken depending on what an HMRC officer ““thinks””. I do not want to query the substance of the clause, but how we deal with the issue of objectivity. There is a range of options. We could take it that an officer just ““deems”” something to be the case, whereas the use of the word ““thinks”” implies some element of objectivity and some grounds. There should, however, be some burden of proof, whereby the officer"““has reasonable grounds for believing””" that the previous section should not apply. If we wanted total objectivity, that reference could be taken out altogether, and the clause would read, ““if an application under Schedule 1 would not succeed””. I would not want to push it that far; I am simply saying that there should be ““reasonable grounds for believing”” that to be the case. That issue becomes even more important when we deal with penalties for errors. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably, as I will raise those issues later, and what he says may have a bearing on the amendments that we choose to table. I hope he will give positive consideration to the need for more objectivity in the language. Although it could be argued that the present wording is easier to understand, there are other more complex drafting issues. It must be clear that there is that element of objectivity.