Treat us like grown-ups on tax

It is frankly absurd that tax changes, of either big or small significance, should be hatched in total secrecy in the depths of the Treasury and then sprung on the public, without any prior warning, via a Budget speech.

What is the reason for such secrecy? It serves no purpose other than to give the governing party a few moments advantage over the Opposition in the ensuing debate, and possibly to capture a few ephemeral headlines. Those advantages, if they can be called that, are as nothing when set against the way ill-thought-out measures both poison the atmosphere between government and governed and lead to bad outcomes.

No one likes being taxed, but everyone accepts that there has to be some. It should therefore be a given that they are sensible in whom they impact, efficient in that they yield a lot but cost little to collect, cause the minimum distortion of behaviour and are, of course, broadly seen as fair.

These may be challenging outcomes to achieve. But there is surely a much better chance of doing so if - before anything is set in stone - tax changes are preceded by extensive debate and consultation, rather than allowing a few closeted mandarins to give full rein to their latest gee-whiz ideas. Major changes should never come as a shock.

What we are seeing right now, though, is the unedifying spectacle of a business community on the back foot, lobbying like mad to try to get the Treasury to change its mind. This isn't right.

Society at large should be put on the front foot, to suggest how the tax regime might be improved, to propose new taxes which would better existing ones and in general to reform a system everyone knows is creaking. Informed debate should replace what we are getting at the moment - self-interested, though understandable, special pleading.

A sign of how things could develop if the Government encouraged a grownup approach will come out - probably the other side of Christmas - when the CBI publishes, after a long review by GE's UK boss Charles Alexander, its thoughts on reforming corporation tax.

One proposal which may or may not make it into the final draft is that all small businesses should be self-certifying for corporation tax, in the same way as individuals self-certify their income tax. If adopted this would remove the need for tens of thousands of tax-collectors and accountants and make life hugely simpler and cheaper for companies. Since small business pays only a small proportion of total corporation tax, it would not put at risk the overall amount raised.

That's the sort of proposal which ministers should encourage. Let's hope that one thing they learn from the CGT shambles, which has left the Government looking foolish, inept and antibusiness, is there is a better way.

Aviva may not be the biggest British insurance company by market capitalisation - Prudential having just overtaken it - but by any other measure it remains a significantly larger business. Indeed, measured by new-business figures, the third-quarter total of £23 billion worldwide announced today is half as much again as the Prudential's £14 billion-£15 billion. Norwich Union is also a big brand in general insurance - an area where the Pru is not involved at all - and Aviva's European business is in fact bigger than its Asian and US businesses combined.

Overall today's story from Aviva is a good one: the US storming ahead, Asia up 60% and the UK up a little against a buoyant period last year after the A-day figures. But the longer-term judgment of it and new chief executive Andrew Moss hinges on the success or otherwise over the next three to five years of his plan to transform the group under the slogan "One Aviva, twice the value".

That requires much greater internal focus on capital efficiency, driving sales and growing earnings per share. It involves organisational change, with a new regional structure designed to get the business closer to its customers and improve co-ordination between currently fragmented activities such as asset management. And it requires operational change, which will come through in a simpler product range, continued use of outsourcing and cost reductions designed to take £350 million out of the business.

By any standards this is a tall order on a larger empire born of several different cultures. But there is a vigour and a determination about Moss and his team which it would be unwise to bet against.

Adam Smith said 200 years ago that if you put businessmen in a room together, within five minutes they will be conspiring against their customers. In other words all businessmen love to have a monopoly and almost always it is against their customers' interests.

Conspiracy isn't the issue in Nike's bid for Umbro, but monopoly certainly is. Research carried out by Umbro last year and quoted in the Financial Times said that in 2006 Adidas had 35% of the football-shirt market, Nike had 32%, Umbro had 8% and Puma had 5%.

On this basis, if Nike gets Umbro it will have 40% market share and overtake Adidas. This may be good for its executives' egos, but it's hard to see what other useful service it yields. The range of football-shirt suppliers, already painfully small, will reduce. Clubs will have fewer to choose from, customers who are already grotesquely overcharged will have even less chance of competition leading to lower prices.

It is rare to see a deal with so little rationale other than size. If the competition authority does not put this through the ringer and spit it out then there is no point in having one. Indeed it would make case for having two, so they would also have some competition to keep them up to the mark.