CC(97)Minutes (1)
13 May 1997
The minutes of the first meeting of
the Consultative Committee are attached.
JULIE McCLATCHEY
Secretary to the Consultative Committee
Present:
Neil Munro - Chairman
Stephen Alambrits
(Federation of Small Businesses)
Richard Baron (IoD)
David Brodie (TaxAid)
Adam Broke (Special Committee)
Russell Chaplin (British Chambers
of Commerce)
Michael Cole (ABI)
Ron Downhill (Law Society)
Ken Etherington (CBI)
Simon McKie (ICAEW)
Cunnie Rankin (ICAS)
Mavis Sargent (ACCA)
Paul Tipping (BBA)
Jane Vass (Consumers'Association)
John Whiting (CIOT)
David Williams (Queen Mary College)
Secretary:
Julie McClatchey
1. The Chairman welcomed members of
the Committee to the first meeting.
CC(97)1: The Role of the Consultative
Committee
2. The Chairman said that the proposals
outlined in this paper had been drafted in the light of the suggestions
made in the Revenue documents published in 1996 and of the discussion
at the first meeting of the Steering Committee. The Revenue's
main priority was to ensure that the Committee's consideration
of the rewrite work was helpful to all concerned. So whatever
was agreed about roles and responsibilities now would need to
be revisited in the light of experience.
3. The paper outlined three main aspects
of the Committee's role. These were:
endorsing the quality of the rewrite
relationship with the Project Team
relationship with the Steering Committee
4. Most of the ensuing discussion concerned
the first of these points.
5. Several members of the committee
were concerned about how this aspect of their role could be achieved,
particularly in terms of endorsing the accuracy of the
legislation. Their concern focused on the amount of time they
would have to consider draft legislation and what restrictions
there would be on how much they could discuss with colleagues.
On the other hand, members of the Committee were anxious to ensure
that they would have sufficient input during the preparation of
the rewritten legislation.
6. The Revenue explained how in practice
they envisaged the consultation process working. There would
be two main stages.
7. The first stage raised questions
about how the Consultative Committee would be involved during
the drafting process. In the light of experience so far, it seemed
certain that difficult points would arise on which the Project
Team would need guidance. Points of general principle, where
wider issues were involved, would probably be referred initially
to the Steering Committee. But other general points - and technical
points on the detailed provisions - would be referred in the first
instance to the Consultative Committee. Where appropriate, the
Committee would be invited to consider examples of the rewritten
legislation (as 'work in progress').
8. Members of the Committee would be
free to consult colleagues with specialist expertise in the relevant
area of the tax code. The Revenue confirmed that, where appropriate,
Committee members could bring such colleagues to the relevant
meeting (although the Secretary would need prior notice). The
Revenue reminded the Committee that another way of handling such
questions was by appointing sub-groups which could deal with them
at working level.
9. The second stage of the consultation
process concerned the publication of draft clauses. The Revenue
intended to publish these as widely as possible in a series of
Exposure Drafts. Comments would be gratefully received from any
interested parties but the Revenue intended to discuss the Exposure
Drafts only with the Consultative Committee.
10. In order to ensure orderly publication
of these documents, the Revenue proposed to send Consultative
Committee members personal copies of the final proof versions,
with an embargo on wider distribution until the publication day
(which would normally be about a week later). Committee members
would obviously then be free to consult colleagues on any points
arising from the documents. The formal discussion of the Exposure
Draft would take place some time later, towards the end of the
consultative period.
11. Some concern was expressed that,
on this approach, Committee members might not have the opportunity
to comment on general issues such as the structure of the rewritten
legislation at a formative stage. The Revenue were not sure how
great a problem this would be in practice. If, however, it emerged
during the consultative process that there were serious difficulties
of this nature with any rewritten legislation, they would withdraw
the relevant draft clauses and publish a second, revised, Exposure
Draft later on.
12. The discussion turned to questions
of design and layout. There was general agreement that the overall
look and feel of the rewritten legislation would be important,
in ensuring that it did contribute to clarity and user-friendliness.
The Revenue confirmed that they would welcome comments from
the Committee on design and layout aspects as well as on the content
of clauses. The Committee asked about commissioning research
by experts to help in this area. The Revenue said that that was
an option they were currently considering (as well as the possibility
of readability/usability testing of the rewritten legislation).
They would want to share their thinking with the Committee in
due course on both these aspects. But they noted that any proposal
to employ external consultants would need to be fully justified.
13. The Revenue said that, in view of
the volume of paper involved, they were not generally proposing
to circulate research papers, drafting instructions etc. for each
area of rewrite work. Instead, they envisaged that each Exposure
Draft would be accompanied by a detailed commentary on the draft
rewritten legislation.
14. In conclusion, the Committee were
generally content with the proposals for their role, but saw their
role as one of reviewing, rather than endorsing, the rewritten
legislation. The Revenue said that the responsibility for the
legislation lay with the Project Team to satisfy the Steering
Committee (and the Joint Committee in Parliament). In doing
so, the Steering Committee will want to be assured that the Consultative
Committee have seen it and are generally satisfied with it.
15. There was general agreement among
those present that the role of deputy Chairman should be filled
by Adam Broke, in his capacity as Chairman of the Special
Committee of Tax Law Consultative Bodies.
CC(97)2: Project Organisation and
Plans
16. The Revenue said they hoped to circulate
the Operating Plan to the Committee shortly, and this would show
the plans in more detail.
17. The Committee briefly discussed
the critical success factors. In relation to the aim of acceptance
by all main users, the Revenue said that they were not targeting
particular groups but were aiming to make the legislation as clear
as possible.
18. The Committee were agreed on the
importance of influencing ongoing legislation by establishing
best practice. If they did not do this, the benefits of the Project
would be lost.
19. On Parliamentary procedure, the
Revenue explained the background of the Lord Howe working
group, the report by the Select Committee on Procedure and that
a Standing Order establishing the procedure for the Rewrite Bills
had been passed on 20 March. The Revenue would circulate
copies of the Standing Order, and a summary of the Procedural
Committee report.
CC(97)3: Australia and New Zealand
Tax Rewrite Projects
20. The Committee noted the current
state of play in Australia and New Zealand.
CC(97)4: Minutes of First Meeting
of the Steering Committee.
21. The Committee noted the minutes,
and the clear wish of the Steering Committee to be involved as
closely as possible in the Project.
CC(97)5: Housekeeping Arrangements
22. The Committee were generally content
with the proposals in the paper. They discussed the issue of
publicity and agreed that, if they were approached by a journalist,
their comments would be made as individuals rather than on behalf
of the Committee. Although some journalists could be unfriendly,
the Committee felt that this should not be a major problem and
that publicity could be helpful for the project.
23. The Revenue said they would circulate
a list of names and addresses of members of the Committee.
Julie McClatchey
Secretary
13 May 1997
| Home | ||||
