Could do better

The BBC report that OFSTED are worried that too much maths is "taught to test". They are complaining that too many maths lessons are designed to help the children pass maths tests rather than helping them to understand the mathematics. Surely this is a fault of the system which measures schools.

But I am much more interested in the judgement of OFSTED that only 40% of lessons are "satisfactory" and satisfactory is not good enough. Perhaps we ought to test OFSTED on their use of English!

The same could also be true about the Treasury Ministers responsible for drafting tax legislation. A recent exchange between the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Right Honourable Jane Kennedy, and the Chartered Institute of Taxation also suggests that there could be a misunderstanding of some basic English. The correspondence is about one of the clauses in the latest Finance Act which changes what legislation drafted in 1987 says, with effect from 1987 - in other words backdating the change by some 21 years.

Whilst there is no problem in the Government changing the rules and indeed changes are welcome where they are countering obvious abuse, changing rules which have been in effect for over two decades does not appear to be "proportionate".

The Financial Secretary implies that the rules have always worked as intended and that the comment in HMRC manuals that some people might interpret them differently does not cast any doubt on their effectiveness.

Surely the comment in the manual does tell us that there has always been some doubt about the interpretation of the legislation and the fact that the legislation has now been changed confirms that there must have been some doubt.

The reason for making a change now seems to be something to do with the amount of tax at stake - the value of the transactions which rely on an alternative interpretation of rules is now big enough for the Government to need to do something. Whilst there is no objection to the change being made, back dating that change does seem to be unnecessary if, as the Treasury says, it is no more than a clarification - making clear what the rules actually say.

Perhaps if legislation were drafted more carefully and possible misinterpretations were dealt with immediately, rather than leaving it until the amount of money at stake became important, the tax system would work better.

I am not sure if the Treasury explanation for why they need to back date the change even meets the "satisfactory" standard that OFSTED would want to see.