Proceeding contribution from John Bercow (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 13 June 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance Bill.
Finance Bill
We all want the hon. Gentleman to move on, but we also want clarity, if not too much of it. The hon. Gentleman objected to amendment No. 36 on the grounds that it did not remedy a mischief. His exegesis of the unamended clause is of interest, but it is not conclusive. Does he not accept that it would be helpful if the Minister made it clear that that the existing unamended clause is intended to embrace the terms of amendment No. 36? Failing that, we are justified in pursuing a belt-and-braces approach.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 435 c41
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Disclosure of information Admissions Charities Companies Corporation tax Charitable donations Finance EU law Investment Exemptions Interest payments Gift aid Ownership Museums and galleries Property Loans Open ended investment companies Small businesses Tax avoidance Taxation Transfer pricing Financial Ombudsman Service National Savings and Investments Collective investment schemes
- Legislation
- Finance Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-27 13:49:11 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_251792
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_251792
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_251792