It is my belief that the Joint Committee on Human Rights should have scrutinized Section 58 before it reached the Statute book. If you read what they said in a report back in 2004, it is clear that they suspect the Treasury of paying lip service to Human Rights concerns.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...ts/93/9305.htm
"We remind Ministers that statements of compatibility under s. 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 should only be made after careful consideration of the human rights implications of the Bill, and that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill should record the reasoning behind the conclusion that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights. The Treasury is not exempt from the need to explain itself in such a way."
I believe that it's worth trying to get the Committee to retrospectively review the legislation. (Sorry but I couldn't resist the pun.)
If you agree with me then please send the following letter to your MP.
You can email it via http://www.writetothem.com, or preferably send it snail mail.
Thanks!
DR
http://www.publications.parliament.u...ts/93/9305.htm
"We remind Ministers that statements of compatibility under s. 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 should only be made after careful consideration of the human rights implications of the Bill, and that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill should record the reasoning behind the conclusion that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights. The Treasury is not exempt from the need to explain itself in such a way."
I believe that it's worth trying to get the Committee to retrospectively review the legislation. (Sorry but I couldn't resist the pun.)
If you agree with me then please send the following letter to your MP.
You can email it via http://www.writetothem.com, or preferably send it snail mail.
Dear …
I am writing to ask for your help. I would like you to approach the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on my behalf, and request them to undertake a review of the retrospective tax introduced in Section 58 Finance Act 2008. Please feel free to forward them a copy of this letter.
As you know, the JCHR is responsible for scrutinizing legislation which may have potential Human Rights ramifications. I have reviewed all of their published reports from 2008, and I can find no reference to Section 58 (Clause 55 FB 2008), so it would appear that they were not asked to examine this particular measure.
In the JCHR 12th Report (May 2004), the Committee had this to say about retrospective taxes:
“A retrospective provision would be one which levied the charge in respect of the benefit enjoyed in previous years. Such a tax would require very careful scrutiny for compatibility with the requirement of accessibility and foreseeability.”
Given that Section 58 is a full blown retrospective provision, it seems to me that the JCHR should have been given the opportunity to scrutinize it before it ever reached the statute book.
On 5th November 2008, HMRC's senior officer in charge of their enquiries, Alan Brannigan, sent a newsletter to users of the scheme stating:
“[HMRC] do not consider that the legislation is in any way incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.”
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury Stephen Timms has responded to representations from MPs, regarding Section 58, making the following assertions:
"Retrospective legislation does not in itself contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. Prior to introducing the legislation the Government considered very carefully the issues relating to fairness and certainty, and the public interest, and took the view that in the circumstances the legislation was appropriate."
It seems strange that the Government claim to have considered the legislation “very carefully”, and yet the Committee specifically tasked with scrutinizing such matters were apparently never even consulted about it.
The retroactive nature of this tax, backdated 7 years plus interest, will have a devastating effect on the lives of hundreds of families. Many people could be forced to sell their homes, and in some cases bankruptcy may be the only option. I hope that the Committee will take this into account when deciding on an appropriate course of action.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
I am writing to ask for your help. I would like you to approach the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on my behalf, and request them to undertake a review of the retrospective tax introduced in Section 58 Finance Act 2008. Please feel free to forward them a copy of this letter.
As you know, the JCHR is responsible for scrutinizing legislation which may have potential Human Rights ramifications. I have reviewed all of their published reports from 2008, and I can find no reference to Section 58 (Clause 55 FB 2008), so it would appear that they were not asked to examine this particular measure.
In the JCHR 12th Report (May 2004), the Committee had this to say about retrospective taxes:
“A retrospective provision would be one which levied the charge in respect of the benefit enjoyed in previous years. Such a tax would require very careful scrutiny for compatibility with the requirement of accessibility and foreseeability.”
Given that Section 58 is a full blown retrospective provision, it seems to me that the JCHR should have been given the opportunity to scrutinize it before it ever reached the statute book.
On 5th November 2008, HMRC's senior officer in charge of their enquiries, Alan Brannigan, sent a newsletter to users of the scheme stating:
“[HMRC] do not consider that the legislation is in any way incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.”
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury Stephen Timms has responded to representations from MPs, regarding Section 58, making the following assertions:
"Retrospective legislation does not in itself contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. Prior to introducing the legislation the Government considered very carefully the issues relating to fairness and certainty, and the public interest, and took the view that in the circumstances the legislation was appropriate."
It seems strange that the Government claim to have considered the legislation “very carefully”, and yet the Committee specifically tasked with scrutinizing such matters were apparently never even consulted about it.
The retroactive nature of this tax, backdated 7 years plus interest, will have a devastating effect on the lives of hundreds of families. Many people could be forced to sell their homes, and in some cases bankruptcy may be the only option. I hope that the Committee will take this into account when deciding on an appropriate course of action.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
DR
Comment