Finance Bill

As I have just explained, an officer has a duty to think reasonably, because otherwise his decision would automatically be unlawful under administrative law. I respect the hon. Gentleman’s experience of criminal justice legislation, and the Government have given him plenty of opportunity to accumulate it in recent years when he has spoken on such legislation from the Front Bench. He may be interested to learn, however, that the word ““thinks”” is used over 3,000 times on the statute book, and I believe that its use here is appropriate. I can tell the hon. Lady that we have received no representations suggesting that the word ““think”” in clauses 81 and 82 should be removed or amended since the Bill was published at the end of March—apart, of course from her amendments. The hon. Lady mentioned clause 96. She may be aware that representative bodies and tax professionals have expressed reservations to us about the phrase ““HMRC think”” in respect of the clause and the schedule on civil penalties, but the underlying concern raised on those provisions is entirely separate from the clauses on criminal investigations. I will not go into the distinction here. I am sure that we will have a chance to do so in Committee, but in recognition of the anxiety that has been expressed and in response to those representations that have been made, I intend to table an amendment in the Public Bill Committee to clause 96 and schedule 24 on civil penalties. However, it would be inappropriate to change the word ““thinks”” in clause 81, as her amendment suggests. I therefore hope that she will not press the amendment.