Proceeding contribution from Lord Risby (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 6 July 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance Bill.
Finance Bill
It is a real joy to have the presence of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). Something was lacking in our proceedings until, as I came to the Dispatch Box, there he was; the whole atmosphere in the Chamber suddenly lifted. I am delighted to see him, but I should point out that his questions could more appropriately have been put to his own Front Benchers, who have had a number of years in which to resolve these issues. I cited the experience of the United States in respect of residential, rather than commercial, investment, and gave the hon. Gentleman the relevant figures. So the experience of the United States has been specified and spelled out, and I dare say that it might be comparable in this country. I should point out to the Economic Secretary that he doth protest too much. The idea seems to be that our suggestion is appalling, irresponsible and gratuitously offensive. The argument is that we are suggesting that this process, about which we have heard in three successive Budgets, should suddenly become terribly quick, and that it is quite wrong to deal with it rapidly. The Government have had a number of years in which to consider this issue. There have been representations from the investment community—[Interruption.] I thank the Economic Secretary for that sedentary intervention. I am not sure whether I heard him correctly, but he seemed to suggest that he wants us to participate in this process. We would be more than delighted to do so, and so would the investment community. Perhaps we could then persuade him to reach some form of conclusion. The idea is that 31 October is in some way a blood-curdling date, but all that the inclusion of such a date is designed to do, as the Economic Secretary well knows, is to bring this issue to a rapid conclusion. As he will know from the industry, because this issue has not been resolved, money is going offshore instead of coming into this country. However, it has been resolved perfectly satisfactorily in a number of foreign jurisdictions. I should point out that it is not a case of officials doing an outstanding job and the Treasury being at fault; it is Ministers themselves who are procrastinating and who cannot get their act together. [Interruption.] The same point applies to the hon. Member for Normanton (Ed Balls). We have tabled this new clause in order to raise this issue yet again. I am afraid that those out there who are watching this particular Government performance will be extremely disappointed by the Economic Secretary’s response. We do not wish to press the matter any further, other than to make the perfectly valid point that it should be brought to a proper conclusion. I hope that it will be dealt with very rapidly, and that we can stop the endless procrastination that is so damaging for our businesses. That said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 436 c390-1
- 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 11:18:05 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_256916
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_256916
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_256916