I am impressed that the Minister has taken the time to encourage his officials to meet LITRG. I am pleased that he agrees about the outdated nature of some of these archaic terms: ““idiot””, ““lunatic””, ““insane”” and so on should not be part of our modern legislative lexicon. I am interested that yet again he manages to find a flaw in the drafting. It is almost like one of those circular nightmares: no matter what point any Opposition party makes to any Government, there is always a desire to resist by pointing out drafting and terminological problems. I think that the Minister accepts the spirit in which we have been trying to raise this issue.
I agree entirely that it is important to take whatever time is necessary to frame the definitions correctly in law, but we are not talking about designing a whole new regulatory regime for financial services or some convoluted way of taxing child benefit. We are simply talking about a minor change to modernise the terminology in tax law. I am still slightly sceptical about the argument that we need to take another couple of years to do so.
Finance (No.2) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Chris Leslie
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 8 November 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Finance (No.2) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
518 c97 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:19:58 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_678034
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_678034
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_678034