Tag: Treasury

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 10 February 2004.

“Of all the responsibilities of government – to ensure a competitive environment, to invest in science, skills and infrastructure – the greatest and pre-eminent challenge is the creation and entrenchment of economic stability and taking the hard decisions to lock in stability even in difficult times in the world economy – like the last three years when we have lived through the first slowdown to hit all continents simultaneously for 30 years.

But instead of being – as in the old days – first in, worst hit and last out of any world downturn, Britain has not only avoided recession but has continued to grow in quarter after quarter, year after year, in all seven years of our government since 1997.

And we are not just one of the only major industrialised countries to have avoided recession but have been more stable than any of our neighbours over the last few years.

While I recognise that manufacturers and exporters in all regions have faced difficult times, employment overall has continued to rise, unemployment continued to fall and we have had the lowest interest rates and lowest inflation for a generation.

And I believe that now the world economy is strengthening, with, in the fourth quarter of last year, GDP in Britain growing by 0.9 per cent – the fastest rate seen since the first quarter of 2000.

And for the year as a whole, UK GDP expanded by 2.1 per cent – in line with the Treasury’s Budget and Pre Budget Report forecasts.

Growth is also becoming more balanced. While consumption has moderated over the last few months, official data shows that manufacturing output has been rising – up 1.1 per cent in the 3 months to December compared to a year ago. And business surveys show a marked strengthening in corporate conditions in every region of Britain, with export prospects for manufactured exports at their highest level in eight years.

As we discussed this weekend in the USA, the lessons all advanced economies have learned are that in a global economy, monetary and fiscal policy has now to adjust quickly to fast moving changes and to heightened risks of instability – and to do so it has to be proactive and forward looking.

While there is a link between money supply and inflation, in open economies with liberalised capital markets rigid monetary targets just cannot work. But the experience of the 1970s and 80s also taught us that, correct as Keynes was to point to the need for proactive and forward looking monetary and fiscal policy – ever more essential in fast moving capital markets, the old way of doing so – crude annual fine tuning – could not work either.

Instead the flexibility and proactive approach a modern economy needs demands a framework – both monetary and fiscal – based not on short term targets but on clear long term objectives that are met and seen to be met: instead of politicians making interest rate decisions on short term considerations, the Bank of England independently operating a symmetrical inflation target — a target that because it is as concerned about deflation as it is about inflation is not just pro stability but pro growth.

And in Britain today, in contrast with the experience of many other economies where growth has been lower, the credibility that has come from independence for the Bank of England and the symmetric target, the British model we have created, has enabled the monetary policy committee to respond early and decisively – raising interest rates in 1997, cutting them sharply in 1998 – and again with nine interest rate cuts since the latest global downturn began with the result that, even when more exposed than any European economy to the IT shock, growth continued and unemployment continued to fall.

I want to reassure you today that we will never take stability for granted and I can say categorically to investors everywhere that while no-one can ignore the reality of the economic cycle and the potential of global events to impact on the economy, we have shown it possible to make the hard choices and to steer a course of stability. And we will continue to make whatever decisions are necessary to steer that course and support our monetary authorities in the difficult choices they have to take.

And we will entrench not relax our fiscal discipline. Let us recall that at this stage in the economic and political cycle governments have resorted to short termism in fiscal policy and gone on to raise the rate of spending.

But I can tell you this evening that I am determined not to go down the short term road, and we are resolved to avoid the short termism and mistaken monetary and fiscal policies of the past.

So, as I have announced, we will, while meeting all our commitments and our fiscal rules, lower the rate of spending growth in the next spending round.

And let me add: as we welcome the opportunities of Enlargement, we will continue to demand the same discipline from the European Union as we demand of ourselves. We are agreed to resist plans for any excessive increase in the European Union budget. And, so as we are determined to lock in monetary and fiscal discipline in Britain at this stage of the economic cycle, we are resolved to tackle profligacy and waste where it exists in the European budget.

As I found at the G7 this weekend, each country and continent is having to face up not just to the immediate question of fiscal sustainability but to the longer term question of sustainability. Some countries face bills for pensions and health care rising over the next decade to 20 to 25 per cent of national income. Our bills are much lower – around 5 per cent for state pensions for example – and we are determined to ensure that our fiscal position is sustainable over not just a year or two but over the next decades. And in the Budget we will publish our best forecasts not just for the next few years but the next decades examining the costs of health care and pensions in the years ahead, showing how we can meet our fiscal rules.

So let me conclude: it was decisive action by the Bank of England, and supportive fiscal policy, that ensured Britain – unlike other countries – avoided recession. And let me be clear: Britain would have run the same recessionary risks as other countries – indeed, suffered the same British recession of the past – but for the new British model that has been created.

As the monetary policy committee demonstrated rightly and decisively last week, it will be the same forward looking monetary action – backed by our sound fiscal policy – that can, if we continue to make the right decisions and stick to our resolve, lock in greater stability not just for a year, or for an economic cycle, but in this generation – a prize of greater stability that has eluded successive governments of all parties in the post war era; a prize that – with resolve and prudence – is now within our grasp.

So it was right not wrong to make hard difficult choices to ensure that inflation and debt are low, and our fiscal rules are met.

You asked the government to make stability our first priority, above all else, after years of boom and bust.

And I repeat: our priority will remain stability first: stability yesterday, today and tomorrow.”

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 11 February 2004.

Following Budget 2003, the Government commissioned research from the consultancy Integrated Skills on ways in which increases in landfill tax could be recycled to business.  The Government is publishing that research today.

This independent report highlights a range of measures which could be useful to businesses in reducing the amount of waste that is sent to landfill.  The two high priority options identified are targeted grants, and funding for increases in promotional, capacity building and advisory services.  However a range of other options are also considered to be helpful for business in reducing waste sent to landfill.

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 19 February 2004.

Alan Wood today launched a consultation process to identify the barriers faced by British businesses in accessing the estimated €1,500bn per year European market in public procurement.

Mr Wood, Chief Executive of Siemens in the UK and Chair of the EEF Economic Policy Committee, has been asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to examine the difficulties faced by UK-based firms in competing for public procurement contracts in other European Union countries.

The consultation will run until early April, and Mr Wood will present his findings and recommendations for action later this year.

Launching his consultation, Alan Wood said:

“We want to know which factors help UK suppliers win public contracts in other Member States, and what difficulties they encounter. I want to find out how these experiences compare with tendering for public sector contracts in the UK or for private sector contracts in other Member States.

We will look at any specific examples of barriers faced by UK firms and whether there is any unfair discrimination or other factors at work. I will also look at which procurement practices encountered in other Member States are helpful or unhelpful”.

Businesses can find a questionnaire and further information about the review on www.woodreview.org.

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 2 March 2004.

The Government today outlined its plans to introduce a long-term strategy for supporting British science and gave its commitment to make Britain one of the most competitive locations in the world for science, research and development and innovation.

At a breakfast seminar with leading figures in the UK scientific community, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, Secretary of State for Education Charles Clarke, and Secretary of State for Industry Patricia Hewitt announced plans for a fundamental review of funding needs and policy priorities for science, engineering and innovation, with a ten-year investment plan to be announced as a central priority for this summer’s Spending Review.

Gordon Brown said today:

“The Britain that succeeds in the new world will be a leader in science, skills and enterprise. So we have to make it a priority as a nation to invest in what is the key to our whole economic future and well-being – our science and skills.

“While it would be easier to take the short term route – and fail to make the necessary investments for the future – we propose to take the longer term view, to choose science above many other spending priorities, and we will therefore propose a ten-year investment plan for science, engineering and innovation alongside the 2004 Spending Review.”

“To help inform this plan Patricia Hewitt, Charles Clarke and I will consult widely with the scientific community, with universities and research institutes, with charities, and with business over the next few months.”

Patricia Hewitt said:

“The UK has some of the best scientists and universities in the world, and to secure that science base, we’ve invested over £1.75 billion in university infrastructure since 1997.  But as our Innovation Report showed last year, we still need to get science out of the labs, into our companies and onto the balance sheet.  Our businesses can and should benefit from this fundamental review of our science needs.”

Charles Clarke said:

“It is extremely timely to have this debate now. The teaching of science and scientific development are highly charged and topical issues. High quality science teaching, a high quality research base, high level science and engineering skills and a broad understanding of science across society are also important drivers for educational and economic success.

“That is why we have already invested more in the training of science teachers in developing and energising the science curriculum in schools and massively increasing the investment in research and research facilities in our universities. Our commitment to science will continue with the ten-year framework which will make sure we remain at the cutting edge of scientific change, innovation and revolution. We simply cannot afford to be playing scientific catch up with our main competitors.”

Today’s announcement has been welcomed by the scientific community.

Dr Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust, said:

“I am delighted by this long-term commitment to strengthen the UK science base. The Wellcome Trust is able to fund first class research in UK universities because of the resolve and partnership of government. We will continue to work closely with the Government to support and develop the excellence of UK biomedical research.”

Professor Sir Harry Kroto, President of the Royal Society of Chemistry, said:

“I welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s recognition of the crucial importance of science and technology to the knowledge economy of the 21st century, by bringing together the leading SET institutions to discuss the best way ahead – on which the UK’s very future and success will depend.”
And Lord May of Oxford, President of the Royal Society, said:

“The Royal Society welcomes the long-term investment that the Government is committing to both basic research and innovation and recognises the significant efforts that have already been made to improve the infrastructure in our universities. The UK is a world leader in science and can only maintain its international standing with the full support of the Government for our world class science base.”

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 15 March 2004.

Ruth Kelly, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, today announced that Clive Briault, Hector Sants and David Kenmir, the FSA’s three new Managing Directors are to be appointed Directors of the FSA Board.  Clive Briault and David Kenmir will be appointed from 1 April and Hector Sants from 4 May 2004

Commenting on the appointments, Ruth Kelly said:

“I welcome the appointments of Clive Briault, Hector Sants and David Kenmir as Managing Directors and am pleased to appoint them to the FSA Board in that capacity. Their knowledge of retail and wholesale markets and of regulatory services will prove invaluable to the FSA in implementing the new management structure.”

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 15 March 2004.

Sir Michael Lyons challenges Government to mainstream decentralisation of public sector activities out of London as a means for improving public service efficiency, regional competitiveness, and devolution. The final report from his Independent Review of Public Sector Relocation,  – ‘Well Placed to Deliver? – Shaping the Pattern of Government Service’ was published today.

In his report to the Chancellor, Gordon Brown and the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, he confirmed that departments have identified some 20,000 jobs that could move out of London and the South East and recommended that they should urgently take forward their relocation plans in the context of the forthcoming Spending Review. A further 7,000 posts would no longer be required, as a result of efficiency measures.  Potentially, over £2 billion could be saved over 15 years as a result.

Sir Michael made ten key recommendations. As well as departments’ moving quickly to implement their relocation plans, some of the recommendations were that:

• Government should be prepared to make the necessary investment;
• there should be a strongly enforced presumption against London and the South East for new activities and many other functions;
• London headquarters should be radically slimmed down;
• there should be greater coordination between departments in relocating activities; and
• Government must take responsibility for the whole pattern of its locations.

Full details of Sir Michael’s recommendations are attached at annex a.

Commenting on his report, Sir Michael Lyons said:

“I am grateful to departments for their cooperation.  I believe that a new pattern of government service will contribute significantly to Government’s policies for the reform of public services, improving regional growth, national competitiveness and devolution.  Government needs to take firm action to recast the pattern of its business in a way that better meets the needs of the nation in the new century.  I am certain that Government can meet that challenge.”

Sir Michael argues that the pattern of government has to be reshaped.  The concentration of national public sector activity in and around London is no longer consistent with Government objectives. It does not reflect the large cost disparities between London and the rest of the country. Neither does it correlate with the benefits of dispersal for the efficient delivery of government business or for the regional economies.

Sir Michael acknowledges that as the capital, London needs a governmental core supporting ministers and setting the strategic policy framework.  However, in every other respect, the status quo is open to challenge.  And, if Government wishes to make a significant impact on the pattern of its locations across the country, it will need to take firm action in the coming years.

—-

1. In April 2003, the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister asked Sir Michael Lyons, Director of the Institute of Local Government Studies at the University of Birmingham, to conduct an independent study into the scope for relocating a substantial number of public sector activities from London and the South East to other parts of the United Kingdom.

2. Departments have identified about 27,000 posts which could go from London and the South East.  Of these, 19,700 are candidates for relocation, whilst 7,500 are expected to disappear as part of efficiency improvements.

* The Chancellor has indicated since the review that he expects some 5,000 posts from his departments to be relocated

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 16 March 2004.

On the eve of the Budget, the Government today launched a consultation with business, research foundations and the scientific community on the framework for a ten-year strategy for investment in science and engineering.

Speaking to senior figures from science and industry at a National Science Week event at No.11 Downing Street today, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown promised to protect the large funding increases for science and engineering announced in the last Spending Review, and pledged increased investment in future years.

The Chancellor stressed that the delivery of the objectives set out in the ten-year framework would depend on collaboration between Government and business, research foundations and the investment community to ensure the overall level of investment required.

A number of major companies, including GlaxoSmithkline, AstraZeneca, Shell, Vodafone, Amersham and Rolls Royce, are already in discussions with the Government on how their commercial investment in R&D and innovation can partner public investment in the UK science base, with GlaxoSmithkline and AstraZeneca announcing over £100 million of investment in individual research, science and technology projects today.

The consultation will set out the aims and ambitions of the ten-year framework, with the ultimate purpose of making Britain one of the most competitive locations for science, research and development and for innovation:

• world class excellence from the best centres of science and technology, driven by competition for funding and talent;
• a dynamic research base that meets the needs of both public and private funders and is managed effectively to achieve financial sustainability;
• greater collaboration between universities and business to provide a sharper focus for research and an impetus to innovation and productivity growth;
• better commercial translation of leading edge technologies into applications in business and the public sector;
• the science and technology skills that the nation’s businesses and public services will need over the next decade, underpinned by excellent teaching in schools to engage the next generation of workers in the knowledge economy; and
• a society that is confident about the regulation and use of science and technology.

Gordon Brown said:

“National Science Week is an ideal time not just to be celebrating Britain’s history of scientific excellence but to look forward to a future in which science and engineering skills will be even more crucial to Britain’s ability to compete in high-technology, high-value sectors. So we are preparing new partnerships with businesses and charities to meet this global challenge.

“I can confirm that we will support our ten year science strategy by locking in the significant boosts to science from the last two spending reviews and that we will continue to work with leading science based companies, the scientific community and research charities so that for the years from 2005-6 we can raise science funding as a share of national income.

“This is a collaborative effort.  I am delighted that a whole range of leading R&D businesses have indicated that they wish to work with us on our science strategy and to make their own commitments to the future of British science and innovation over the next decade. Our final funding decisions will reflect the extent of the parallel commitments made by all the key players on research and development in the UK.  So this is the challenge I am putting to all our partners, leading businesses and charities, today – with one ambition and purpose: to make Britain the best and most attractive location in the world for science and innovation.”

Education Secretary Charles Clarke said:

“The case for science is iron-cast. A strong supply of highly skilled scientists, engineers and mathematicians, greater collaboration between universities and business and a broader understanding of science across society are all important to our economic competitiveness and educational edge. No-one can be in any doubt about this Government’s commitment to science and It is important that we build upon the momentum we have already created. This is a great day for science and innovation.”

Science and Innovation Minister Lord Sainsbury said:

“The UK needs to raise its innovation performance if it is to compete in the global economy with the low wage emerging economies such as China and India.

“The quality of our science and engineering is an important national asset. In recent years knowledge transfer from our universities has improved an business R&D is also now increasing, but we need to do more in both areas as well as making certain that our science and engineering base is properly funded.”

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 17 March 2004.

Launching her Final Report – “Delivering Stability: Securing our Future Housing Needs” – Kate Barker said:

“I believe that continuing at the current rate of housebuilding is not a realistic option, unless we are prepared to accept increasing problems of homelessness, declining affordability and social division, decline in standards of public service delivery and increasing costs of doing business in the UK – holding back our economic success.  My Review sets out a series of policy recommendations to address the lack of supply and responsiveness of housing in the UK.

Creating a more flexible housing market is a considerable challenge that will require concerted action by all players: Government at national, regional and local level, the building industry, and those engaged in social housing provision.”

• In 2001, around 175,000 houses were built in the UK – the lowest level since the second world war.  And over the past ten years, the number of new houses built has been 12.5% lower than in the previous decade.
• Over the last 30 years, UK house prices went up by 2.4% a year in real terms – compared to the EU average of 1.1%.  In Germany it was 0.0% and in France 0.8%.  Latest evidence suggests the trend rate of house price growth has increased to 2.7% over the last 20 years.

A weak supply of housing:

• Contributes to macroeconomic instability and hinders labour market flexibility, constraining economic growth.
  Leads to housing becoming increasingly unaffordable over time.  In 2002 only 37% of new households in England could afford to buy a house, compared to 46% in the late 1980s.
• Re-distributes wealth from have-nots to haves, bringing potential for an ever widening social and economic divide between those able to access market housing and those kept out.  Rising numbers in temporary accommodation is evidence of the polarisation that exists today (in 2003 there were 93,000 households in temporary accommodation compared to 46,000 in 1995).

Estimating Housing Need

The Review sets out three scenarios for England’s housing requirements in the future, two of which would require policy changes beyond those already being implemented by Government.  For private housing, these may be over-estimates, as greater supply would affect expectations and change the response of prices to additions to the housing stock. Taking as the baseline the level of private sector build in 2002/03 (140,000 gross starts and 125,000 gross completions) it is estimated that:

• Reducing the price trend in real house prices to 1.8% would require an additional 70,000 private sector homes per annum; and
• More ambitiously, reducing the trend in real house prices to 1.1% would require an additional 120,000 private sector homes per annum.

An increase in supply of social housing of 17,000 homes each year is required to meet newly arising need. Making inroads into the backlog of the most needy, coupled with the Report’s range of future price scenarios, mean that up to 23,000 additional social homes per annum would be required. These scenarios imply additional investment, building up to £1.2 (and £1.6 billion respectively), not all of which should necessarily come from Government.

The Review’s scenarios set out choices for Government, which needs to consider the appropriate balance between the objectives of macroeconomic stability, market affordability, meeting housing need and environmental sustainability. This is likely to require further action from Government, building on the achievements of the Sustainable Communities Plan and the planning reforms already underway.

Key recommendations

Government should express its objectives for the housing market through establishing a goal for affordability of market housing, with the aim of improving access to market housing over the housing market cycle.  This should be incorporated into the Public Service Agreement framework to reflect the status of housing as a national priority.

To deliver this improved market affordability, and building on changes already underway, the Report recommends a number of reforms to the planning system:

• In setting housing targets and allocating land, planning bodies should take greater account of market signals, such as changes in house prices and levels of market affordability.
• Stronger, more strategic regional strategies for housing and planning should be delivered through the bringing together of regional planning and housing boards and the establishment of new Regional Planning Executives to create a stronger evidence base for housing decisions.  Regional Planning Executives should provide independent public advice on the scale and allocation of housing numbers within regions.

At a local level the allocation of land for housing should become more responsive to demand for housing. In drawing up local plans, planning authorities should allocate buffers of additional land, which would be released for development as triggered by indicators of unexpectedly high demand.

Action is also required to ensure that appropriate incentives are in place for local authorities to support development, and to ensure that development is not held up by the absence of necessary infrastructure:

• Local authority growth incentives should be introduced to address the costs of additional housing, allowing local authorities to “keep” the council tax revenues from additional housing for a period of up to three years;
• More strategic use should be made of English Partnerships and area-based special purpose vehicles such as Urban Development Corporations to drive housing delivery;
• A Community Infrastructure Fund of £100-200 million should be created to overcome infrastructure blockages and facilitate development.

The Review has considered the appropriate role of taxation for housing and land.  Landowners and developers typically make windfall gains as a result of residential planning permission being granted, especially where this is on greenfield sites. These windfall or development gains result from the increase in land values, as land for housing is worth up to 300 times more than agricultural land.  It is right that the community shares in this increase in value, which could provide funding for other policies important to increasing housing supply.  Reforms in this area would also bring certainty and simplicity to the system, compared to the present situation whereby contributions are made through complex and protracted Section 106 negotiations.

The housebuilding industry needs to focus on its customers and deliver a better quality of service.  The industry is characterised by low customer satisfaction levels, a weak record of investment in skills and innovation and a cautious approach to increasing levels of output.  The Review sets out a number of challenges for the industry:

• to improve levels of investment in skills;
• to improve significantly customer satisfaction; and
• to build out sites, particularly large ones, as quickly as possible.

Taken together, the package of measures set out by the Review would have a positive impact on housing supply.

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 17 March 2004.

The Government has today accepted in full the recommendations of its review of the Revenue Departments, led by Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, Gus O’Donnell.  The recommendations, published today, represent an important contribution to the public service reform agenda.

Key recommendations include:

• creation of a new department, integrating HM Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue, tasked with improving customer services, particularly reducing compliance costs, improving compliance with tax law, and increasing efficiency;
• clearer roles and responsibilities for tax administration within a new accountability framework and annual remit laid down by Ministers; and
• transfer of tax policy functions to the Treasury, to improve the ability of the Government to respond to modern tax challenges and create a greater delivery focus in the new department.

In responding to the review, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:

“HM Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue can and should be proud of their work, achievements and histories.  The changes announced today will modernise the institutions in line with international best practice.  They will enable them to use their expertise and experience to deliver better outcomes for the country, particularly improving the service to taxpayers, managing tax revenues, and improved efficiency.”

A NEW TAX DEPARTMENT FOR THE UK

When announcing the terms of reference for the review, the Chancellor paid tribute to the key roles played by Customs and the Revenue in support of the Government’s reforming agenda.  This has been further reinforced by the work of the review.  But the work has also highlighted the benefits in taking a new approach:

• joining up services to shared customers, particularly businesses.  In effect the UK currently has two separate business tax authorities;
• ensuring that effort in enforcing the tax rules reflects risk across the tax base, which will maximise the revenue for public services while reducing compliance costs for honest taxpayers; and
• sharing administrative tasks between the departments to improve efficiency and giving greater opportunity to allocate staff to different areas of work.

Today’s report does not set out a detailed blueprint for change.  New services and approaches will be developed by those in the new department in consultation with stakeholders in a long term programme.  The changes announced today create the institutional framework for this work and the flexibility to respond to future challenges.  The Government will legislate to establish the new department as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

The Chancellor announced that he will advertise this week for an Executive Chairman to run the new department who, pending legislation, will be appointed to both departments.

The review has worked closely with the ongoing Gershon efficiency review.  The reforms discussed as part of the efficiency work dovetail with the organisational and information reforms announced today.  This integration of HM Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue along with existing plans and proposed efficiency reforms, could create scope for overall savings equivalent to up to 14,000 jobs by the end of 2007-08.  On the basis of policy commitments and existing spend to save packages this would result in a net reduction equivalent to 10,500 posts by 2008.

CLEARER ACCOUNTABILITY

The review has concluded that the new department should be governed by a new accountability framework setting out more clearly the respective roles of Ministers and officials.  This will be developed in partnership with the new senior management.

At the same time new accountability arrangements, set out in a framework document, will be introduced. The Chancellor will give an annual remit to the new department outlining its main new and on-going tasks, to be focussed on what should be achieved and why rather than how.  The new department will have lead responsibility and accountability for implementation, with clearer and greater discretion to manage itself.

This reflects the general approach of the Government to public service reform:

• clear long term goals, and division of responsibility and accountability;
• flexibility and discretion to develop and implement innovative approaches to delivery;
• devolution or decentralisation of power, with maximum transparency about goals and progress towards achieving them, and subject to scrutiny and accountability.

COORDINATING TAX POLICYMAKING

The report sets out a new division of work on policy between the Treasury and the new organisation.  Both departments will continue to work together, ensuring the close links between legislation and delivery that are essential to successful policy, but the Treasury will lead tax policy work and the new organisation will lead on policy maintenance and delivery issues.  The main drivers behind this change are:

• to increase capacity in the Treasury for strategic tax policy analysis;
• to improve the linkages between tax and non-tax economic policy making;
• to facilitate coherent policy making across types of tax, for example by introducing a greater focus on particular economic objectives such as productivity or macro economic stability; and
• to give the new organisation a greater operational focus, making it easier for the management to concentrate expertise on delivery challenges.

Over time the new department and the Treasury will work in partnership to examine tax services and law to ensure they reflect and take full advantage of the new customer centred structure.

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 18 March 2004.

Treasury Permanent Secretary Gus O’Donnell today held a meeting in 11 Downing Street with business representatives, and the accountancy and legal professions involved in work on tax.

The meeting was an opportunity to explain and discuss the outcome of Mr O’Donnell’s review of the revenue departments, and to set out further details of the Chancellor’s proposals for greater transparency in the market for tax avoidance schemes and arrangements, and of the steps which will be taken to prevent forestalling of the new regime.

The meeting was constructive, and focused on the importance of on-going dialogue between the Treasury, Inland Revenue, and HM Customs and Excise, and representatives of business and the professions.