I want to address new clause 5, but in doing so return to the debate that we had in Committee on clause 112 on computer records.
The Financial Secretary will recall the argument: clause 112 requires the taxpayer to allow HMRC, a commissioner or an officer to"““inspect a document, or to make or take copies of or extracts from or remove a document””."
We were talking about computer records, so I gave the example of an e-mail, attachment or web page on a server hosted outwith the country. I also made the point that clause 112 allowed an authorised person to have access to"““any person having charge of, or otherwise concerned with the operation of, the computer””."
That could be a third party, a maintenance company, someone with a management contract, or a computer that was not under any circumstances in the control of the taxpayer whose documents the Revenue was trying to see.
The Financial Secretary gave us some comfort at that time, particularly in relation to the extraterritoriality potential in clause 112. However, it is in part 7, as is the introduction of schedule 36 penalties, including paragraphs 43 to 47 and 50, which include the concealment or destruction of documents, failure to comply with time limits, and the tax penalty if a failure or breach continues after an initial penalty has been levied. I am sure that it is not the intention of the Bill or the Revenue, but given the debate on clause 112 in Committee, it strikes me that a penalty under schedule 36 could be levied for concealment, breach of time limits or a tax penalty thereafter, for non-compliance with an order to allow a document to be copied, extracted or removed from a computer wholly under the control of a third party, and not under the control in any way, shape or form of the taxpayer. What attracts me to new clause 5 is the reference to safeguards applying to taxpayers who might find themselves in the hideous position of wanting to comply but being technically unable to do so.
I look forward to what the Minister has to say about clause 112, computer records, how breaches could be penalised under schedule 36, and what safeguards might exist in the absence of new clause 5 to prevent or insure taxpayers from being penalised if they had no control over a document that the Revenue was trying to get at or to copy.
Finance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Stewart Hosie
(Scottish National Party)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 1 July 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Finance Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
478 c804-5 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:06:20 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_489006
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_489006
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_489006