§ 2.47 p.m.
§ Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ What progress has been made with the Tax Law Rewrite project.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, the Tax Law Rewrite project aims to rewrite the United Kingdom's existing direct primary tax legislation to make it clearer and easier to use without changing the effect of the existing law. It requires the in-depth analysis of our current tax legislation so that it can then be restructured and rewritten in clearer language.
The project is making good progress. It has already published two exposure drafts containing draft rewritten legislation for public comment, with four more planned by next March. The project commands cross-party support and has been widely welcomed by all parts of the tax community. It is committed to a continuing process of consultation. This is a highly innovative project and a massive task, but we are committed to doing it well.
§ Lord EzraMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very positive report and commend the work so far done. I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, who is chairman of the steering committee and who was largely responsible for the initiation of the project. However, I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, is it not a fact that the project as at present defined is likely to take longer than was 430 originally anticipated, and does that not argue for more skilled personnel to be devoted to the task? Secondly, is it the Government's intention that major new tax legislation should initially be drafted in user-friendly language? If that is not the case, it is difficult to conceive how the task could ever be completed as previous chunks of legislation would be rewritten, to be succeeded by new chunks which would still require to be rewritten.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I am glad to echo the noble Lord's tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, for his work both in initiating the project and as chairman of the steering committee. I believe that the noble Lord was, as I was, a recipient of a letter in August from the noble and learned Lord asking for our views about progress on the project. One of the questions he asked was whether it was acceptable for the project to last more than five years from its starting date of March 1997. The Government's response is that if that is what is necessary to get it right, then it is acceptable. I believe that that answers the noble Lord's first question.
§ As far as new tax legislation is concerned, yes, we are keen that future finance Bills should, as far as possible, be written in the form devised by the rewrite project. However, that is not always possible bearing in mind the timetable for finance Bills and the fact that they grow and change as they go through Committee in another place.
§ Lord Mackay of ArdbrecknishMy Lords, is the Minister aware that I welcome the Government's commitment to the tax law rewrite group? It follows on the commitment of the previous government which I gave from the Dispatch Box. Like the noble Lord, I received a similar letter. Is he aware that I replied in much the same terms, namely, that if it takes a little longer to get it right, so be it? However, may I ask the noble Lord if it would not be possible to suggest to the draftsmen of Part IV of the Scotland Bill that they might profit from a visit to the tax law rewrite group before the Report stage of the Bill? After all, the slogan of the tax law rewrite group is "Making tax law clearer". If any noble Lords wish proof of the necessity of that, I commend to them Part IV of the Scotland Bill.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his first comment. A project which will inevitably last more than five years clearly needs cross-party support and I am glad to hear him confirm that it has that, as I have done previously. My noble friend Lord Sewel has heard the noble Lord's second question.
§ Lord TaverneMy Lords, do the Government agree that the first examples of the rewrite project are wholly encouraging in achieving a clarity of language which seems quite alien to traditional tax legislation? On the question of the timetable, it seems somewhat unrealistic 431 to expect this tremendously ambitious project to be completed within five years. Have the Government a more realistic timetable now in view?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I am grateful for the first comments of the noble Lord. This is becoming boring. I believed this to be the most boring subject that I had to deal with. But when I look at the examples in the exposure drafts the improvement in clarity of the original legislation in the rewrites is very striking. The noble Lord referred to progress. The letter we have received from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, is part of the stocktake undertaken by the steering committee. Responses to that letter have been asked for by 30th September. The steering committee is considering them and will report to the Government accordingly. I believe that at that stage we shall have a clearer view of progress. But the commitment remains that the first new Act on capital allowances to emerge from this process will be available within two years of May 1998.
§ Lord GoodhartMy Lords, speaking as a member of the Tax Law Review Committee which initially proposed the rewrite, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to join him and my noble friend Lord Ezra in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, for all of the work that he has done on this subject. Does the noble Lord agree—I am sure he does—that it is highly desirable that tax law should be rewritten in language that is not, as at present, comprehensible only to those of us who are tax lawyers, and very often not to us? May I encourage the noble Lord to proceed with all possible speed with this highly worthwhile project?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, question one, yes; question two, yes. As one of the effects, I understand, would be to provide less work for the tax Bar I am surprised to find it so supportive of the project.