I do not want to get drawn into the moral issue of deprecating or not deprecating: what I am interested in is the efficiency of revenue collection and the clarity of the law for the people having to meet it. It is the job of this House to have a clear tax law that people have to follow, and we often have these debates to try to carry out that task. Sometimes tax law is so complicated, or people outside this House are so ingenious, that there are ways round it that I might disagree with and the right hon. Gentleman will often disagree with, and that is when we come back to legislate again. We say, "We haven't done our job well enough. People are avoiding tax more easily than we would like them to be able to, and so we're going to add another complication"—or sometimes even a simplification or clarification—"to the tax law to try to capture that." That is the job of this House. The shadow spokesman and I will sometimes agree that an avoidance scheme goes too far and we need to legislate to stop it; on other occasions, we will disagree. I will say, "That's perfectly rational tax planning—don't be such a party pooper", he will say, "I don't like people getting away with that kind of thing", and we will have our disagreements.
Finance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
John Redwood
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 12 July 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
513 c694 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 17:41:00 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_654512
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_654512
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_654512