Transfer of Tribunal Functions and Revenue and Customs Appeals Order 2009

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the implementation of the helpful provisions of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The statutory instrument before us today is an especially important one and a valuable step forward towards the streamlining of tribunal applications in this country. The transfer of the functions of four disparate tax tribunals into one overall homogenised tribunals system is arguably a long overdue measure and it is all the more welcome for that. Three sets of interests will be served today, once this House opts to take a positive decision on the Motion before us. First, the promotion of co-operation and clarification of procedures within and between government departments is to be welcomed. The co-operation shown between HMRC and MoJ officials at many levels so far is to be commended and further to be encouraged. Secondly, the overall tribunal system will benefit. Thirdly, the public will finally be able to benefit from this harmonisation process and administrative procedures alignment. One set of rules for all tax regimes is indeed progress, although it is worth pointing out that the initial recommendations came from the Leggatt report as far back as 2001. The public have waited a long time for this reform. The practicalities arising cannot be known until these provisions are put into effect and their impact on the public assessed. Once the system becomes operational, benefits and drawbacks will no doubt become clearer. However, I seek clarification from the Minister on some points. We are told that the new system is expected to be less expensive than the old—I stress the word ““expected””. Arguably, we should be striving not towards savings but towards securing an effective system that will fill the public with confidence, will be easy for the public to access and use and, above all, will be clear and simple to apply and to follow. In introducing the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill, the Government were motivated by their desire to facilitate access by the public at large to a single forum to resolve disputes. The public have been referred to as ““customers””, ““clients”” and ““stakeholders”” throughout this Government’s lifespan. Let us assume that the system is designed to serve the people of this country who seek to challenge government decisions that affect them and that the costs of their so doing will remain reasonable. The impact assessment claims savings, but the one-off set-up costs are ““expected”” be £1.25 million, with the annual costs thereafter to be £2.75 million. A breakdown of these figures would be very useful. The abolition of some 400 locations at which general commissioners heard cases and the introduction of 130 service venues across the UK will by the Government’s own admission enhance rather than diminish costs. We are told that it is anticipated that local halls may be hired and that videoconferencing may be introduced, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated. All of this will cost money. However, what level of costs will the public have to incur to avail themselves of the proposed procedures? Without doubt, representatives of small businesses will need to travel further and thus incur direct and indirect expenditure, which will in turn affect their livelihood. We are also told by the impact assessment: "““There will be some training and familiarisation costs for businesses and individuals””." Such costs cannot be ignored. They are the hidden costs, which will in the long run determine how beneficial the proposed reforms are likely to prove to the public at large. Although the proposals give more freedom to appellants by giving them unfettered access to the tribunal and greater control over their affairs, they also place a greater onus on the appellants’ shoulders. Appellants must make their appeal to the tribunal by completing a notice of appeal, so as to include ““grounds of appeal””. How practical or cumbersome that proves to be in practice remains to be seen. We do not know how much help appellants might receive from government agencies by way of advice or useful information. There is of course no legal aid available and, these days, small businesses are certainly counting the pennies. While we welcome the promise of guidelines, we have not seen even a draft and cannot assess the user-friendliness of such proposals. New mechanisms for transmitting appeals such as filing documents online may prove helpful, but, at the moment, without the detail, the promise of help that the guidelines may contain appears no more than cosmetic. Similarly, it is not entirely clear how paper track applications will work in practice. Who will determine the working provisions and what standards will be set so as to encourage the public to make use of such a procedure? How far is it expected that such applications will alleviate the need for appeals? What is their likely overall cost? I understand the principles involved, but we should have more detail of the practical application of the proposals. There are similar questions to be raised with regard to the new review procedure. Is it intended to be simply an internal review, carried out by another civil servant of equivalent rank to the decision-maker, or will there be an independent reviewer who will be in a superior and supervisory position and unconnected with the decision? As for accountability, we are told that implementation of the provisions of the order will be closely monitored. From which angle will that be—the public’s ability to cope with the system, cost-effectiveness or the satisfactory solution of disputes? What happens to the results of such monitoring? Will there be a report to Parliament, or will there be some internal document or report, simply to be shelved or buried? It is obvious that there is a lot of detailed work still to be done. We thank the Minister and look forward to hearing more from him in future months and years.