HC Deb 29 January 1968 vol 757 cc1029-31

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I beg to move, in page 90, line 8, after 'force' to insert: 'on such date as the Treasury may order'. If it would be convenient to the Committee, we could discuss with this Amendment the next, in line 10, leave out '1968' and insert: 'next following the date of the Act coming into force'. for they are closely related.

The Deputy Chairman

If that is for the convenience of the Committee? I think it is.

Mr. Graham Page

I am much obliged.

As the Bill stands, it comes into force in the fiscal year 1968–69, but it is only a part of the consolidation of the Income Tax law which, I understand, is to be pat before the House in due course by the Government. This Bill merely lifts a few Sections and some parts of Schedules out of the Income Tax Act, 1952, a consolidation Measure. The question arises whether it is wise to bring this in piecemeal at this stage, without consolidation of the whole Act.

I raised this point on Second Reading in the form of asking whether this was an instalment in the process of consolidation in Income Tax law. Indeed, it is, of course, one of the major tasks of Parliament, I would have thought, to consolidate the Income Tax law so that it is in a simple form for further revision as occasion arises. The answer which I received from the hon. and learned Gentleman at the time was rather disturbing. He said, yes, this is an instalment of consolidation in Income Tax law, but he did not wish the House to be misled by thinking we were to have a complete consolidation Measure relating to Income Tax. He said: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding arising from what I have just said. It is not the intention that this Capital Allowances Bill, when it becomes law, will at a later stage be as it were re-consolidated into a new consolidation Measure, but I do not think that is what the hon. Member had in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 2163.] Indeed it was what I had in mind. I had hoped that the intention was eventually to produce another consolidation Measure such as the Income Tax Act, 1952, which has been of very great practical use, and will not be nearly so valuable if it is reproduced in a number of new editions scattered over various volumes dealing with various parts of the law. Again I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman before we pass this Clause and the Bill comes into operation for the next financial year that he would give an assurance to the Committee that it is intended to produce a completely new volume of consolidation of Income Tax law and not just piecemeal chapters scattered about so that there is just as much difficulty in finding the law as if it had never been consolidated.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine)

The effect of this proposal, if it were accepted by the Committee, would be to bring the Bill into force on an appointed day, and that, in my submission to the Committee, is not an acceptable proposal. If there were any material change in the law between now and the appointed day the result would be merely to postpone the operative date of a consolidation which the House has already approved by giving to this Bill a Second Reading. If, on the other hand, such substantial changes did take place as the hon. Gentleman has brought forward as a possible event then the Bill would not be a proper consolidation of the law in force on the appointed day. I think that really he is in a very difficult dilemma on that point, and I do not quite see how he can get out of it.

The choice before the Committee is either to pass the Bill with its existing commencing date or to throw it out altogether; in which case it would, no doubt, be reintroduced together with the consolidation of the remaining provisions of the Income Tax code which is now being prepared. It could, however—as I pointed out in my Second Reading speech—possibly then be argued all over again that, in view of the possibility of future changes in the law, it would still be the wrong time to consolidate.

If the principle which lies at the back of the Amendment—to grace it with the name of "principle"—were accepted, that would have the effect of making consolidation measures haphazard and sporadic to a degree which I could not recommend to the Committee. The Amendment is inconsistent with the other provisions in the Bill, which are expressed to come into force on 6th April, 1968 for all purposes. The substance of my reasoning in asking the Committee to reject the Amendment is that to concede the hon. Gentleman's point would be to admit into the process of consolidating the law, which hon. Members on both sides desire to see advanced, wholly undesirable hazards, risks and delays.

Mr. Graham Page

All that I had hoped for from the right hon. and learned Gentleman was an assurance that the Income Tax law would be consolidated as a whole and that we would not have, over a period of years, little pieces taken out of the 1952 Act and presented in this form. This would only confuse the law more and more because when we eventually get to the later chapters to be consolidated, the first ones will be out of date and we will have to begin amending them. This is the difficulty in piecemeal consolidation and that is why I urged the right hon. and learned Gentleman to assure the Committee that the whole of the law would be consolidated and that we would have it all in one volume.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to