CC(97)Minutes (4)
24 July 1997
The minutes of the fourth meeting of
the Consultative Committee are attached.
JULIE McCLATCHEY
Secretary to the Consultative Committee
Neil Munro (Chairman)
Adam Broke (Special Committee)
Richard Baron (IoD)
David Brodie (TaxAid)
Russell Chaplin (BCC)
Benedict McHugo (ABI)
Malcolm Gammie (Law Society)
Cunnie Rankin (ICAS)
Andrew Goldstone (ICAEW)
Mavis Sargent (ACCA)
Jane Vass (Consumers' Association)
James Rouse (CIOT)
Mervyn Woods (CBI)
Margaret Hill
John McCormick
Paddy Linford
Jenny Ottewell
Secretary:
Julie McClatchey
1. Neil Munro welcomed Benedict McHugo (representing the ABI in place of Michael Cole), and Andrew Goldstone (representing the ICAEW in place of Simon McKie). There were apologies for absence from David Williams, Scott Rae and Paul Tipping. Malcolm Gammie would be replacing Ron Downhill as the Law Society representative.
2. Neil Munro introduced members of the Project Team attending for the first time - Margaret Hill and Paddy Linford are Rewrite Team leaders, and Jenny Ottewell is a member of the Rewrite Team responsible for the Trading Income Exposure Draft.
Minutes of third meeting.
3. The Committee were content with the minutes.
Paper CC(97)16: Gender-neutral drafting
4. The Committee had postponed consideration of this paper from the previous meeting. Neil Munro explained that the Project Team had consulted on this issue in 1996. Most of those who had expressed a view had stressed that the priority for the rewrite should be clarity and accuracy. Nevertheless, the Project Team recognised that many people felt strongly about this issue. They therefore proposed that they would use gender neutral drafting where it did not conflict with the main objectives of the project.
5. Though two members would have liked a stronger worded commitment than in the paper, most Committee members supported the line taken by the Project Team. They were pleased to note that the Exposure Draft on Trading Income had been drafted in gender-neutral language.
6. However, some Committee members had reservations about gender-neutral language because it could result in more complex language. The Project Team said that they were aware of this danger, and would seek to avoid it.
7. Jane Vass noted that the Equal Opportunities Commission had circulated a guidance leaflet to MPs on the issue of sex equality in legislation. The leaflet encouraged a gender-neutral style of drafting.
Paper CC(97)17: The Role of the Consultative Committee
8. The Project Team had prepared this paper in the light of the continuing discussion about the role of the Consultative Committee. Neil Munro noted that the consultation process involved for this project was a new process for all involved. The paper before the Committee did not seek to find solutions but aimed to identify the issues that needed to be resolved.
9. The paper described how the Project Team saw the four main phases of the consultation process:
10. The Committee discussed some particular points on the processes outlined in the paper:
11. The Project Team said that they had benefited considerably from the input from the Consultative Committee so far, particularly on the work on trading income for the first exposure draft. They had found it very useful to get reactions to their proposals from those with different perspectives. The team emphasised that they had not expected comprehensive detailed comments at this stage, but they had made several changes to the draft legislation on trading income in the light of comments made by the Committee.
12. It had been suggested that papers should be sent out further in advance. But the Committee recognised the impracticability of this because of the danger that work might well have moved on by the time the papers were discussed. However, the Project Team reaffirmed their commitment to circulate papers for meetings at least a week in advance.
13. The main general issue under discussion was whether the Committee was expected to endorse the rewritten legislation. Given the limited time available before publication, it would not be possible for the Committee to scrutinise it line by line. Some members felt that the Committee should look at the legislation in detail before publication of an Exposure Draft. However, most felt that publication should not be held back for this. The majority of the Committee preferred the proposal that they would discuss the comments received from the consultation, and their own detailed comments at the next meeting after the end of the formal consultation period.
14. Summing up the discussion, Neil Munro emphasised that the responsibility for the technical accuracy of the rewritten legislation was for the Project Team. There was no question that the Consultative Committee would be required to endorse the rewritten legislation or in any way verify its accuracy. The Project Team wanted to be able to assure Treasury Ministers and Parliament that, to the best of their knowledge and in the light of the whole process of consultation, the legislation was fit for purpose. The Consultative Committee was a very important part of this process, but not the only one. Other key elements were the experts within the Project Team, colleagues within the Revenue and other people involved in the wider consultation process. The Committee were generally content with this.
Article for Tax Bulletin
15. The Project Team had circulated a draft of an article for Tax Bulletin on the legislation relating to income from savings and investment, and capital allowances to the Committee for information. The article was seeking early general comments on problem areas within that legislation. The Committee made some useful comments on the draft, which will be reflected in the published version.
16. On timing, Paddy Linford said that they would be grateful for comments and contributions during the Autumn. He explained that they hoped to complete the rewriting work on the first stage of the savings and investment legislation by the end of January 1997, followed by publication of an Exposure Draft shortly afterwards.
Any other business
17. Neil Munro said that there was a press embargo on the Exposure Draft (a copy of which was tabled at the meeting) until 31 July.
18. John McCormick said that he hoped to circulate to the Committee during August a paper on basis periods, as part of the next stage of the rewrite of the trading income legislation.
Julie McClatchey
Secretary
24 July 1997
| Home | ||||
