Proceeding contribution from Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 6 July 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance Bill.
Finance Bill
: I am amazed by some of the contributions that we have just heard. I should say to the other Opposition parties that it is normal to allow the Financial Secretary to point out the defects in amendments and new clauses. That is what Ministers do, and they do it, incidentally, in response to Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendments. What is less clear is why the Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokespeople should spend their time on this matter, rather than confronting the essence of the issue. Perhaps the time spent in opposition has made them long to be on the Treasury Bench and, as a result, they have to take on some of the arguments that the Treasury put forward, rather than looking at the issue that concerns our constituents. The Opposition’s job is to make proposals in an effort to represent their constituents. The job of Opposition and constituency Members is to look for problems in our constituencies, and to try to do something about them. I should point out to the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman in particular that although my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party and I do not agree on the future constitutional make-up of the United Kingdom, we do agree on the issue of serving our constituents. We are well aware that many of our constituents in Scotland and Northern Ireland have similar problems—as, indeed, they do in Wales and in many rural parts of England. I should point out to all Members of this House that in tabling and discussing amendments, it would be rather better to concentrate on their constituents’ interests, instead of trying to make foolish debating points. None of us is entirely clear whether the Conservatives are, in principle, in favour of our proposal, but it did not seem that way to judge by some of their Back Benchers’ interventions. I am worried about the practical question of whether the principle behind the proposal also bothers them; more clarification on that point might be useful. Incidentally, the answer to the question that I asked the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) is Brent ““light””. I do not think it a hugely significant problem to set a marker crude. Many of us have known about these matters for years, and it is as well before making pernickety points to be fully familiar with the subject that one is trying to debate.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 436 c370-1
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Children Debts Land Insurance companies Law Excise duties Freight Fuels Inheritance tax Double taxation Investment trusts Oil Property transfer Reform Tax avoidance Taxation VAT Trusts Rural areas Stamp duty land tax Sunset clauses
- Legislation
- Finance Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:17:11 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_256863
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_256863
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_256863