Parliamentary Search

Proceeding contribution from Stephen Hesford (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 24 April 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance (No 2) Bill.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

I am somewhat confused by the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. In terms of commercial property versus residential property, in my constituency, there has been a five-year fight to prevent McCarthy and Stone from developing a certain plot, because it is inappropriate development. Many of my constituents see McCarthy and Stone, and other companies like it, building property simply on a speculative basis. Many of those properties are built and remain empty for years after. I am surprised that he is speaking for a vehicle that would increase development, because I understood that his party’s view is that the south-east should not be concreted over.

Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
445 c421-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Alcoholic drinks Charities Capital gains tax Aviation Corporation tax Computers Cars Climate change levy Fraud Families ICT Environment protection Gambling Income tax Film Exemptions Excise duties Exhaust emissions Landfill tax Inheritance tax Fiscal policy Investment trusts Economic situation Motor vehicles Oil Pensions Personal pensions Olympic Games Life insurance Passengers Pension funds PAYE Paralympic Games Small businesses Tax allowances Tax avoidance Taxation VAT Research Trusts Tobacco Dividend tax credits Stamp duties Tax rates and bands Skilled workers Wills Tax evasion Tax yields Productivity Stamp duty land tax Tax thresholds Real estate investment trusts
Legislation
Finance (No. 2) Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk