---

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the membership of the Committee. The motion on that follows.

Mr. Forth: Yes, I know that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I tried to reassure you by saying, as I led into my argument, that I was dealing with the fact that the quorum is two. I am trying to illustrate the problems that could arise from having such a low quorum. Three of the members present could be members of the payroll, and only two not on the payroll, and so the Government could drive the Committee. However, I will not linger on that if it makes you uneasy, Madam Deputy Speaker. One can readily see that by setting the quorum at only two for the Commons element and only two for the Lords element, all sorts of difficulties could arise, either with the Lords determining tax matters or the Government dominating the Committee. That gives me considerable unease.

I turn now to the text of the motion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham anticipated this point when he properly pointed out that the Joint Committee's

15 Jan 2001 : Column 66

remit, bland as it may sound at first reading, contains potential difficulties. The motion says that the Committee is charged with the responsibility

to consider tax simplification bills.

We do not know what safeguard there is against the Government designating any old Bill a tax simplification Bill, and trying to smuggle through measures in that guise. That matter has not yet been properly examined. It may come up in the debate on the Capital Allowances Bill.

The motion goes on to say that the Committee is charged with the responsibility

in particular to consider whether each bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law.

That is a matter of interpretation. Those in favour of this process will say, "Don't worry folks. This is all good stuff. It is simplification, that's all." However, we are discovering that an unrepresentative number of the members of the Committee, which may be dominated by the Government or by the House of Lords, depending on who is present, could deem that any measure preserves the effect of the existing law, in their judgment.

That is bad enough, but the motion goes on to say that the Committee is charged with that task,

subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.

That almost encourages a process of making changes in the name of simplification. Obviously, the motion gives considerable scope to the Joint Committee, composed as it is of Members of the Commons and of the unelected House of Lords, to make changes to the tax regime in the name of simplification. Indeed, it almost invites it to do so, and that is potentially very dangerous.

Paragraph (6) of the motion says:

The chairman shall have the like powers of selection as are given to the chairman of a standing committee

in our procedures. That increases the importance of the person who is selected to be Chairman and the traditional and proper powers that we give Chairmen in our procedures.

Mr. Bercow: The subjective nature of the remit is becoming ever clearer as my right hon. Friend remorselessly takes us through the issues. At what point does a minor change become a major change? Would it not be helpful if the Paymaster General were to set out indicative circumstances, which would show, at least as far as the Government are concerned, which changes fell into one category and which the other?

Mr. Forth: That would indeed be helpful. However, I suggest that my hon. Friend does not hold his breath waiting for that because we can almost anticipate that the Minister will say that those matters are to be determined by the Committee. That takes us back to where we started. I should have hoped, at the very least, for some reassurance to taxpayers, who are also voters, but who will have no vote concerning the members of the Committee. I should have thought that taxpayers would want such reassurance because what constitutes a minor change is highly subjective and a matter of judgment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman once again that we are straying wide of the mark, and he appears to be repeating himself. Perhaps we could move on.

Mr. Forth: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker.

15 Jan 2001 : Column 67

I want gently to bring my remarks towards a conclusion.

Mr. Redwood: On the point about minor changes, given that we start with extremely complicated tax laws owing to the actions of successive Governments, are not changes essential for simplification? Might the Committee not find that important changes were needed to achieve its overriding objective of simplification? My right hon. Friend is being a little too cautious because the Committee will of course need to make changes if it is to simplify tax law.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We may return to that point when we discuss the Capital Allowances Bill later. That will be a proper discussion about whether simplification inevitably involves change and whether change can take place without a substantive increase in the tax burden, tax rates or anything else to do with tax.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. His forbearance is legendary, although it is not quite on a par with your own, Madam Deputy Speaker.

To pursue the point a little further, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is at least possible that the only available minor change in a Bill could have the effect of making tax law more, rather than less, complicated? What would he say to the notion that a major change that achieved simplification might be greatly preferred over a minor change, even though the motion does not allow for that eventuality?

Mr. Forth: It is interesting that my hon. Friend should say that because I have here the 2000 Hardman memorial lecture, which was to form part of my peroration. The lecture was given by the right hon. the Lord Howe of Aberavon, CH, QC, who is well known to and revered by us all, at the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales. It was entitled, "Simplicity and Stability: the Politics of Tax Policy", and delivered on Thursday 9 November 2000. It was a seminal work in the matter to which we are now giving consideration.

Interestingly, and directly relevant to what my hon. Friend said, Lord Howe said that

those who have studied the problem . . . conclude that, so far from seeking a "big bang" solution, we need instead to identify, define and establish not an event but a process.

The motion endeavours to establish that process, and the mechanism whereby the review will take place.

Lord Howe went on:

We must, in other words, establish a comprehensive mechanism, through which the problems can be addressed and managed tenaciously over a period of years--not unlike the Tax Law Rewrite project itself.

The Minister told us, when she introduced the debate, that we will have a series of Bills over a number of years, of which the Capital Allowances Bill is only the first.

Lord Howe can rightly make a substantial claim to the parenthood of the motion that we are considering, because he said later in his remarks that

we can learn from the Rewrite Project, even though its purpose-built Parliamentary procedure has yet to be tested.

15 Jan 2001 : Column 68

That gives another indication of how new all this is. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said, we are in the early stages of this process and therefore cannot really be sure about what it means.

Lord Howe continued--there is not much more of this, Madam Deputy Speaker--by saying:

The crucial feature is that Rewrite Bills should go--not unlike present Consolidation Bills--for detailed consideration after Second Reading, not to the usual Commons Standing Committee but to the equivalent of what is known as a Special Standing Committee. This . . . would include members of both Houses (under the chairmanship of a Commons Minister)--

that reflects the view of the Procedure Committee--

and be able to hear evidence about the Rewrite Bill before--or in parallel with--more formal consideration of its contents.

We will want to return to Lord Howe's remarks in the later debate. I do not want to draw excessively on his comments at this stage; I just wanted to give a flavour of them because they are important in the context of the Capital Allowances Bill.

All in all, in the brief comments that I have been able to make in this packed debate, I am very unhappy about the motion. I was unhappy right at the start of the debate when I heard both Front Benchers say how consensual, cosy and comfortable they were with the matter. That set alarm bells ringing in my head. When I listened to interventions on the Minister and to my own speech, I developed more and more doubts about what all this means. Subject to what the Minister may say, there are far too many serious questions and by no means sufficient answers. I am minded not to support the motion unless I receive much more assurance.

Come the day when we have a properly elected, representative upper House, I will be much more comfortable with the process. Given the constitutional and historical allusions that I made earlier and, whatever respect I may have for the other place, its Members and their expertise, my unease about enabling and, indeed, encouraging them to participate on taxation matters, the Minister will have to make an awful lot more good and persuasive arguments before I support the measure.

---